Politics 2014

[KevinG]

Here's an interesting idea for you when making an argumen: Provide facts or sound reason. People might actually take you seriously.

 

Stay observation: When you (general term not pointing at anyone directly) agree with a point of view you don't demand facts, but when it is someone brings up a point you disagree with you demand facts.  

 

The situation with ISIS is a mess.  But it is a lot more nuanced than the talking heads and the people here present.  We are not privy to the discussions with in the military and the President.  But on the same token I don't believe we have them right where we want them either.  A long time ago we have stopped giving politicians the benefit of doubt.  We are so quick to rush to judgement and what we think is right, but we don't have nearly the amount of knowledge on the situation.  A few nights ago Hannity had the dude from Duck Dynasty on.  He was their to talk about some book or whatever, but the host allowed him to talk about the ISIS.  Like he is some sort of credible source.  He just let him spit out his crazy, never engaging or pressing.  This is what passes as news and what people use to inform themselves.  Sad really.  

 

I did find this interesting interactive map of ISIS and their control of Iraq.  

 

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/isis/analysis

 

Now going through that I have less of an idea of who controls what in Iraq.  Or what the outcome may or may not be, even less on what we should do.  But at least it is some just straight up data and facts that you can draw your own conclusions.  

[uncool2pillow]

I guess I wouldn't have enough interest to make demands of people I agree with.  I think I'd tend to post facts or arguments myself in reply to something I agreed with if it seemed lacking.

 

My big question about ISIS are they really interested in building a "state"?  If so, are they much of a threat for terror attacks here?  There have been some menacing tweets in support of Isis with the White House or Chicago skyline in the background.  That's disconcerting, but it could very well have no muscle behind it.

 

Russia's another story. I heard about a cease fire last night.  I hope it holds, but Putin's playing a serious chess match right now.  Russians usually kick American ass at chess.

[Hixter]

A former ISIS fighter talks about their future goals: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/world/meast/isis-inside-look/index.html?c=world

[KevinG]

So it appears that we now have a Global coalition tackling the Ukrainian problem and going after ISIS.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/nato-initiatives_n_5772404.html

 

So we have that.  I am sure predictably the talking heads will hate the plan.  

 

Out of curiosity I just checked FoxNews, and rather their top news story wasn't about the President's announcement, but rather a congressmen's assessment of the announcement and why it is wrong.  And nowhere on the site could I find an actual news story presenting a story that stated in general terms, the president spoke, this is what he said this is the plan he presented.  It is all slanted on why the plan is wrong. 

[Hixter]

I am sure predictably the talking heads will hate the plan.  

That's because there's plenty to hate. First of all, the European plan does nothing to address Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It's just a plan to keep current NATO members in the region mollified by promising them something that they've been promised by treaty all along: an attack on you will be considered an attack on us all and we will defend you. Nothing new there at all. And, as usual, the brunt of any fighting in the future will be borne by the United States, as our NATO allies are relatively small and incapable of going it alone.

 

As for IS, this line is telling: 

 

Kerry made clear that the countries would not be sending troops to Iraq or Syria. "Obviously I think that's a red line for everybody here: no boots on the ground," Kerry said

IS will not be defeated without boots on the ground. Period. It's laughable that our leaders keep repeating the "no boots on the ground" mantra, as we already have thousands of boots on the ground at this very moment. U.S. and German special forces have been seen operating in Iraq and I imagine the British and French are there as well. Probably in Syria, too. Airpower does not win wars. The only way to take territory is to put soldiers on the ground.

 

Out of curiosity I just checked FoxNews, and rather their top news story wasn't about the President's announcement, but rather a congressmen's assessment of the announcement and why it is wrong.  And nowhere on the site could I find an actual news story presenting a story that stated in general terms, the president spoke, this is what he said this is the plan he presented.

It's not that hard to find: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/05/obama-toughens-tone-vows-to-defeat-and-dismantle-islamic-state/

[KevinG]

It's not that hard to find: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/05/obama-toughens-tone-vows-to-defeat-and-dismantle-islamic-state/

 

You must be more adept at finding things on FoxNews then I, because looking on the front page (60 mins after the press conference) there was no straight news story on the plan.  Whereas ever other major news outlet had it as the banner headline.  Rather there was a headline saying why the plan sucked. 

 

My point is this, there is a segment of the population that will think this plan is bad no matter what, just because PBO presented it.  The plan may be good it may be bad, but no longer does anyone think critically for themselves, or in general question things.  

 

 

 

As for IS, this line is telling: 

 

IS will not be defeated without boots on the ground. Period. It's laughable that our leaders keep repeating the "no boots on the ground" mantra, as we already have thousands of boots on the ground at this very moment. U.S. and German special forces have been seen operating in Iraq and I imagine the British and French are there as well. Probably in Syria, too. Airpower does not win wars. The only way to take territory is to put soldiers on the ground.

 

 

I think the boots on the ground terminology refers to a massive call up of troops to the region, actively engaged in combat.  As for the assertion that their are "thousands of boots on ground," I am surprised at that and was wondering if you could provide some proof for this assertion.   

 

But more the point, you so see it as an acceptable risk to put American's lives in harms way to solve this crisis, and to get involved in another war.  We have been through two long wars and which were really unnecessary, imho.  I would hope that the leadership would exhaust every option and not put our soldiers in harms way.

 

It will be interesting in the next coming days, as I believe the airstrikes have to be authorized by congress or come to an end.  I wonder what type of political posturing will be done.  This especially in an election year.  

[Hixter]

You must be more adept at finding things on FoxNews then I

As I've said many times before, I do not watch or read Fox News. You mentioned it, I went to their website and found the report in about 4 seconds.

 

As for the assertion that their are "thousands of boots on ground," I am surprised at that and was wondering if you could provide some proof for this assertion.  

After the latest beheading, the DoD announced plans to send 350 additional troops to protect the embassy, bringing the total to nearly 1,000. Obviously, troops defending an embassy from attack are combat troops. There are also several hundred advisors in country. I would expect most to be special ops troops who are actually involved in combat. Then there are the special ops troops that we don't talk about and are most certainly fighting. 

 

But more the point, you so see it as an acceptable risk to put American's lives in harms way to solve this crisis, and to get involved in another war. 

I said no such thing. I said that there is no way that IS can be defeated without boots on the ground and that any such effort would require Americans to lead the way.

 

I would hope that the leadership would exhaust every option and not put our soldiers in harms way.

They are in harm's way at this very moment.

 

It will be interesting in the next coming days, as I believe the airstrikes have to be authorized by congress or come to an end.  I wonder what type of political posturing will be done.

There is already strong bipartisan support for increased action against IS. It's the president who is slowing things down because he's said the "no boots on the ground" thing so many times that he's painted himself into a corner.

[KevinG]

After the latest beheading, the DoD announced plans to send 350 additional troops to protect the embassy, bringing the total to nearly 1,000. Obviously, troops defending an embassy from attack are combat troops. There are also several hundred advisors in country. I would expect most to be special ops troops who are actually involved in combat. Then there are the special ops troops that we don't talk about and are most certainly fighting. 

 

This is not the "thousands" you originally claimed.  Of course there special ops troop and solider protecting our embassies and what not.  I said previously (which you didn't seem to comment on on), the "boots on the ground" thing would be a massive call up of troops to engage in active combat.  

 

 

 

I said no such thing. I said that there is no way that IS can be defeated without boots on the ground and that any such effort would require Americans to lead the way.

 

 

Why won't you take ownership in what you say?  You dance around your statements, and try to have it both ways. Do  you believe ISIS should be defeated or not? The only way you see them being defeated is by sending troops.  If we send in troops American soldiers will be injured or will die (to believe otherwise is just willfully obtuse).  Therefore you see it as acceptable (if you believe sending in troops) to put Americans lives in harms way to solve this crisis.  Or you don't believe ISIS shouldn't be defeated? There will be a cost to this thing, the White House is trying to mitigate that cost, and not unnecessarily risking our troops lives.  Be honest with yourself, and us, and admit the only way you see to defeat ISIS is for Americans to be put in harms way.   

[Hixter]

This is not the "thousands" you originally claimed. 

Unless they're all hopping around on one foot, 1500 soldiers = thousands of boots.

 

Why won't you take ownership in what you say?

Because I didn't say it. 

[LouieB]

It's time to elect a President who will put boots on the ground, torture some people, run up a huge debt, and still not change anything.  Oh yea and then blame the next guy for not getting the job done that he or she couldn't do.

 

There is no answer to this question. I don't even have to read this thread.  WWII was a long time ago. We can't win a war that isn't a war.

 

Oh yea and then there is Hixter's denying he said anything that sounds like anything he said because he didn't say it.  Deja vu all over again.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Unless they're all hopping around on one foot, 1500 soldiers = thousands of boots.

 

Because I didn't say it. 

 

you are the most frustrating individual.  Playing with semantics to actually get around of a real question..   

 

It is unfortunate that you can't admit anything.  You won't even stand for the consequences in what you believe.  I don't know if you are being coy, or think we are stupid, or maybe you are just ignorant yourself.

 

Own up to it.  Yes you didn't say it is acceptable, but you did say bring in the troops.  t is not like these troops will stand around just flexing their muscles and scare ISIS away.  They will fight, they will get injured, they will die.  And if you see troops as the answer, that is fine, own up to consequences.  

 

But again you won't, LouieB is right, you deny saying anything but it sounds like anything, cause that would be saying something.  It really takes the teeth out of anything you say, because you refuse to acknowledge the results.  To paraphrase the Bard, you talk with a lot a hubbub abut really you say nothing at all.  

[Hixter]

Oh yea and then there is Hixter's denying he said anything that sounds like anything he said because he didn't say it.  Deja vu all over again.

I am quite capable of speaking for myself, so there's no need for anyone to try to put words in my mouth. Some VC posters have an unfortunate tendency to do so and I will always reject any such attempts. 

 

I'm an open-minded individual. I enjoy having polite and mature discussions with people who hold opposing viewpoints. I find it easy to separate a person's politics from the person himself and I don't know if I've ever had a political discussion with someone that actually made me angry. I don't lump everyone together as either Left or Right, with lockstep views and predictable beliefs, so it's a little annoying when people on an Internet forum proclaim that I watch Fox News (I don't), that I'm opposed to same-sex marriage (I'm not), that I supported President Bush unwaveringly (I didn't) and that I hate Obama and hope that he fails (I don't.)

 

Ask me my opinion about something and I'll give it. I'll explain the reasoning behind my opinion. But don't do it in an accusatory/insulting/demanding or demeaning manner; it's just not necessary ... or polite.

 

It is unfortunate that you can't admit anything.  You won't even stand for the consequences in what you believe.  I don't know if you are being coy, or think we are stupid, or maybe you are just ignorant yourself.

See above.

 

Yes you didn't say it is acceptable, but you did say bring in the troops.

No, I did not. There is a big difference between saying that IS can't be defeated without boots on the ground and saying "bring in the troops."

 

t is not like these troops will stand around just flexing their muscles and scare ISIS away.  They will fight, they will get injured, they will die.  And if you see troops as the answer, that is fine, own up to consequences.

I am well aware of the consequences of military action. I spent 4 years in the Army and I've watched dozens of friends deploy to war zones over the years; some were wounded and one didn't make it back. I've seen the strain that deployments have put on marriages and I've spent many hours speaking with nervous wives while their husbands were serving in a war zone. Only three days ago, my friend/neighbor received orders to deploy to Afghanistan in October for 9 months. (We're supposed to be pulling out by the end of 2014 but, hey, that's politics.)

 

But again you won't

And again. Please don't put words in my mouth or prejudge me. I'm not capable of reading your mind and you're not capable of reading mine, so let's just try to have a civil conversation without making it personal. It's actually quite easy.

[KevinG]

I am quite capable of speaking for myself, so there's no need for anyone to try to put words in my mouth. Some VC posters have an unfortunate tendency to do so and I will always reject any such attempts. 

 

I'm an open-minded individual. I enjoy having polite and mature discussions with people who hold opposing viewpoints. I find it easy to separate a person's politics from the person himself and I don't know if I've ever had a political discussion with someone that actually made me angry. I don't lump everyone together as either Left or Right, with lockstep views and predictable beliefs, so it's a little annoying when people on an Internet forum proclaim that I watch Fox News (I don't), that I'm opposed to same-sex marriage (I'm not), that I supported President Bush unwaveringly (I didn't) and that I hate Obama and hope that he fails (I don't.)

 

Ask me my opinion about something and I'll give it. I'll explain the reasoning behind my opinion. But don't do it in an accusatory/insulting/demanding or demeaning manner; it's just not necessary ... or polite.

 

See above.

 

No, I did not. There is a big difference between saying that IS can't be defeated without boots on the ground and saying "bring in the troops."

 

I am well aware of the consequences of military action. I spent 4 years in the Army and I've watched dozens of friends deploy to war zones over the years; some were wounded and one didn't make it back. I've seen the strain that deployments have put on marriages and I've spent many hours speaking with nervous wives while their husbands were serving in a war zone. Only three days ago, my friend/neighbor received orders to deploy to Afghanistan in October for 9 months. (We're supposed to be pulling out by the end of 2014 but, hey, that's politics.)

 

And again. Please don't put words in my mouth or prejudge me. I'm not capable of reading your mind and you're not capable of reading mine, so let's just try to have a civil conversation without making it personal. It's actually quite easy.

 

Ok, I have asked this question, and it would be nice to get a straight answer.  I will try to be as simple and straight forward as possible.  To defeat ISIS do you find it acceptable to risk the lives and well being of American service members by bringing troops?  

 

It is a simple question.     

[LouieB]

He'll give you an answer, but it won't be THAT answer.

 

There is NO answer to any of these questions because there are none.  We can't defeat a bunch of lunatics fighting on their own turf with unlimited recruits from all over the world. 

 

And ISIS (ISIL) were the same guys John McCain was saying we should support against Asad and now wants to fight in Iraq with war materials they have collected from every player in the area including us.  Argue all you want about this bullshit.  No one can ever guarantee we can beat these guys no matter how air tight or convoluted the logic  We can have boots on the ground, airplanes in the sky, spies galore, yet there is no guarantee we will ever win short of dropping a nuclear bomb.  Good luck with your rational discussion against a totally irrational enemy.

 

LouieB

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Heck, I'm the biggest peacenik going, like I said before, but even I say, Go ahead and put some boots on the ground if airstrikes are not enough to seriously degrade/destroy these clowns. Of course, it'll create a whole new generation of "martyrs," but that will have to be another president's problem.

 

It's either that, or we start banning travel to all these countries, like we do with Cuba. When was the last time an American was beheaded there?

[KevinG]

Heck, I'm the biggest peacenik going, like I said before, but even I say, Go ahead and put some boots on the ground if airstrikes are not enough to seriously degrade/destroy these clowns. Of course, it'll create a whole new generation of "martyrs," but that will have to be another president's problem.

 

It's either that, or we start banning travel to all these countries, like we do with Cuba. When was the last time an American was beheaded there?

 

Our nation is so war weary, we can't take care of the soldiers from the last wars.  I would hope we try every last effort before we send in troops.  Don't get me wrong ISIS is a threat to our national security and the stability of the region as a whole.  At this point in why not let the airstrikes play out, we are not at the point of necessity to risk lives of our American soldiers.  

 

I am no military strategist, but some have said the only way to defeat ISIS is by sending troops.  But really other than vague assertions, I am not sure I have seen anything that explains to me why that is a better option.  

[uncool2pillow]

Our nation is so war weary, we can't take care of the soldiers from the last wars.  I would hope we try every last effort before we send in troops.  Don't get me wrong ISIS is a threat to our national security and the stability of the region as a whole.  At this point in why not let the airstrikes play out, we are not at the point of necessity to risk lives of our American soldiers.  

 

I am no military strategist, but some have said the only way to defeat ISIS is by sending troops.  But really other than vague assertions, I am not sure I have seen anything that explains to me why that is a better option.  

I tend to agree with this, but I worry that by the time it becomes clear that "boots on the ground" are needed, it might be too late and have cost more American lives or serious damages to our interests (homeland terror strike, use or seizure of WMDs, etc.).  Like you, I'm no military expert, so I am going to hope and pray that the experts know what they are doing and persuade our leadership to take the actions that will keep us safe.  It' a huge leap of faith.

[lost highway]

Region Descends Into Chaos After American Military Intervention, America Considers Military Intervention

 

(choose your own picture)

[KevinG]

Like you, I'm no military expert, so I am going to hope and pray that the experts know what they are doing and persuade our leadership to take the actions that will keep us safe.  It' a huge leap of faith.

 

I am going to put my faith in the current leadership, rather than those who claimed back in 2003 that our occupation of Iraq would take months and the oil we got from it would pay for the war 10 fold.  

[Hixter]

To defeat ISIS do you find it acceptable to risk the lives and well being of American service members by bringing troops?  

 

It is a simple question.     

It's far from a simple question, as there are too many variables involved, but it's essentially a rhetorical question since American service members are already risking their lives in the fight in Iraq and Syria. That said, yes, I think it is worth the risk in order to destroy IS, but I will qualify it with a big BUT (insert Sir Mix-a-Lot song here) by saying that it all depends on the administration's plan that is supposed to be revealed tonight.

 

It will definitely takes boots on the ground in both Iraq and Syria to destroy IS; there are no two ways about it. The president has made so many promises that there won't be American boots on the ground (although there already are) that they may come back to bite him. He's so concerned about his legacy that he's hamstringing our response; he should have just stuck with the old "nothing is off the table" chestnut that has served presidents so well in the past. If things go pear-shaped in Iraq and we have to send more combat troops -- or even if a couple of special forces troops or pilots die -- he'll be adding to his reputation for being "A President Whose Assurances Have Come Back to Haunt Him."

 

The absolute best case scenario would have U.S. and European aircraft dropping bombs on IS while neighboring countries do most of the ground fighting. Even then, American combat troops would have to be embedded with the ground troops to call in the strikes and advise the foreign forces.

 

It will take quite a lot of finesse to get neighboring nations (Jordan, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) to coordinate effectively and to send in enough capable troops to defeat IS on the ground. It would be a much-needed diplomatic success for the administration if it all turns out well, but that isn't how conflicts tend to turn out, so it would be in the president's best interest to just admit that it's a war and show the American people that it's in our best interest to fight -- then let our generals do what they need to do.

 

I am no military strategist, but some have said the only way to defeat ISIS is by sending troops.  But really other than vague assertions, I am not sure I have seen anything that explains to me why that is a better option.  

History is the only explanation that is needed. You simply can't take and hold territory without boots on the ground.

 

I am going to put my faith in the current leadership, rather than those who claimed back in 2003 that our occupation of Iraq would take months and the oil we got from it would pay for the war 10 fold.  

I don't recall anyone saying that the war would be paid for tenfold. I remember that we expected Iraq to be able to rebuild and improve its neglected infrastructure using oil money.

 

The war against the Iraqi military lasted less than 6 weeks. Things were relatively calm for a couple of months and the citizens were somewhat pleased before the insurgency began. Then the sectarian fighting and civil war began.

[Hixter]

And then there is Russia. Russia is a far bigger threat to the West than IS and Putin is a much more formidable and cunning adversary.

 

The breakup of the USSR was a crushing blow for Russian pride. To add insult to injury, 12 former territories (including 10 former Warsaw Pact nations) have joined arch-enemy NATO and more are vying for membership. 

 

Putin has annexed and invaded parts of Ukraine and has made it clear that he would do likewise anywhere there are large numbers of ethnic Russians who feel oppressed. NATO is sworn to protect any member which is attacked. An attack against one nation is considered an attack against all of NATO.

 

Last week, President Obama visited Estonia -- a NATO member -- and made a clear promise to defend the nation against Russian aggression. Two days later, Russian forces crossed the border under cover of a smoke screen and radio jamming and snatched an Estonian intelligence official. They then paraded him on TV in Moscow in a clear case of nose-thumbing aimed at Estonia, NATO and President Obama.

 

Also last week, state-sponsored news agencies reported that a Russian general proposed that the United States and NATO be explicitly named as potential enemies of the nation and that a preemptive nuclear strike should be authorized if deemed necessary -- a clear warning/threat that aded to Putin's recent reminder to the nation's enemies that Russia is a major nuclear power that is actively upgrading it's nuclear weapons and delivery systems while stepping up simulated attack runs against the U.S. and other NATO members.

 

Here is my doomsday scenario. If I can think up something like this while eating a plate of leftover spaghetti, I'm sure Putin and thousands of generals and advisors could come up with something far more elegant.

 

1) Russia foments an uprising in a neighboring country with a large population of ethnic Russians -- let's go with Estonia. There are demonstrations, some rioting and some fighting before some some Estonians request Russian assistance.

 

2) Russia masses troops at the border and shadowy troops with unlabeled uniforms are seen seen fighting on the Estonian side of the border. It's Crimea and Ukraine all over again, but in this case the besieged nation is a member of NATO, so NATO forces begin to mobilize after much debate, discussion and gnashing of teeth by the West.

 

3) Russia begins to mobilize its nuclear weapons forces. Tactical missile launchers are moved into position, bombers and submarines increase their already elevated number of simulated runs at American and European targets and increased activity is seen at Russian ICBM sites. Welcome to 'duck and cover,' 21st century!

 

4) All hell breaks loose. NATO members raise their own postures, harsh words are thrown around in the press and the UN holds emergency session after emergency session, but it all boils down to one question: are the United States and NATO willing to risk triggering a nuclear war over Estonia? NATO doctrine says yes, but what would the citizens of Europe and the United States say? How likely is President Obama to bring the world to the brink of WWIII after investing so much effort in building a legacy of "I don't start wars, I finish them"?

 

5) At this point it's a gamble. A chess match. Putin has successfully gambled with Crimea and seems to be a Grand Master of international diplomatic chess, so it all comes down to how far he's willing to push things. How much is he willing to gamble? 

 

A) He could blink, allow NATO to reinforce Estonia and lose any hope of trying to destroy/dissolve NATO and rebuild the former USSR. Why bother in the first place.

 

B.) He could continue to rattle the nuclear saber and threaten WWIII until NATO backs down and doesn't intervene in Estonia. That would be the end of NATO as we know it and it would be Putin's biggest win. The stage would be set for further territorial gains because no nation would be able to count on NATO to come to their defense.

 

C) NATO could call his bluff and send a small quick reaction force to Estonia to try to prevent an attack. After much bluster and threat, Putin lobs the smallest of nuclear devices at a remote piece of Estonian territory, killing maybe a hundred Estonian troops in a far-flung outpost. HOLY SHIT, NUCLEAR WAR!

 

I) Panic! Outrage! Threats! Posturing! Escalation! UN ceasefires! Diplomatic talks! The world realizes that a nuclear war is not in its best interest and everyone stands down. Still, Putin wins as NATO fails to defend a member nation and is proven to be an irrelevant paper tiger. The nuclear genie is back out of the bottle. As a byproduct, Iran and other nations race to build their own nuclear weapons.

 

II) The nukes fly. Nobody wins. Welcome to Armageddon, it's been nice knowing you. Too bad we'll never get to hear that new Wilco album.

[NoJ]

Or Obama allows a CIA hit squad to whack Putin while he's relaxing at his dacha. Hooray, evil despot eliminated and the world rejoices!

[Hixter]

Or Obama allows a CIA hit squad to whack Putin while he's relaxing at his dacha. Hooray, evil despot eliminated and the world rejoices!

Works for me.

[KevinG]

Or Obama allows a CIA hit squad to whack Putin while he's relaxing at his dacha. Hooray, evil despot eliminated and the world rejoices!

 

 

Works for me.

 

As nice as that sounds and how easy that would be, it is against the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333).  Also it is incredibly stupid and shortsighted.  I would have thought after a very detailed and thoughtful post on the Russia problem we wouldn't get a simple knee-jerk, Michael Bay-esqe solution.     

Putin is a head of state and I do not want to get in to the game of arbitrarily assassinating foreign leaders.  Once we go down that road it can become a slippery slope.   

 

It was mentioned that the Russian sense of pride was hurt after the break up of the USSR, just imagine how hurt they would feel after the US killed their President. 

[NoJ]

Putin has been begging for a lead injection to the head for a long time.