Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Trump's "Mercenary Army"

PetersSmith
Posts: 6,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:00:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
A few weeks ago, Trump poke about his planned policies regarding NATO and our Asian allies. In the interview, Trump said that, if Russia attacked NATO, he would only defend them if those nations have "fulfilled their obligations to us." He said that he no longer wanted to defend allies if they continued to take advantage of America's "largess" (http://www.nytimes.com...). He continued with "They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they're supposed to make. That's a big thing. You can't say forget that." Some say that this threatens the whole alliance (http://www.nbcnews.com...). Trump didn't just refer to NATO with his "pay up or go it alone" policy. He said that if Japan and South Korea do not shoulder more of the cost of stationing US military personnel there, then "they will have to defend themselves". It should be noted that currently South Korean forces would fall under United States control should the war resume. He added "Our friends in Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia will be forced to recalculate their policies and rely less on US support." This of course goes along with Trump's "America First" policy, but can be seen as controversial (http://www.straitstimes.com...).

So, what's your opinion on this? Do you agree with this so-called "mercenary army"? Do you think it should only apply to NATO or do you agree with Trump's policy applying to all of the US's allies? How do you think this will affect the US's relationship with its allies? Do you think Trump's policies here would help relieve some of America's "financial issues"? Discuss.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 3,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:10:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/6/2016 4:00:23 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
A few weeks ago, Trump poke about his planned policies regarding NATO and our Asian allies. In the interview, Trump said that, if Russia attacked NATO, he would only defend them if those nations have "fulfilled their obligations to us." He said that he no longer wanted to defend allies if they continued to take advantage of America's "largess" (http://www.nytimes.com...). He continued with "They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they're supposed to make. That's a big thing. You can't say forget that." Some say that this threatens the whole alliance (http://www.nbcnews.com...). Trump didn't just refer to NATO with his "pay up or go it alone" policy. He said that if Japan and South Korea do not shoulder more of the cost of stationing US military personnel there, then "they will have to defend themselves". It should be noted that currently South Korean forces would fall under United States control should the war resume. He added "Our friends in Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia will be forced to recalculate their policies and rely less on US support." This of course goes along with Trump's "America First" policy, but can be seen as controversial (http://www.straitstimes.com...).

So, what's your opinion on this? Do you agree with this so-called "mercenary army"? Do you think it should only apply to NATO or do you agree with Trump's policy applying to all of the US's allies? How do you think this will affect the US's relationship with its allies? Do you think Trump's policies here would help relieve some of America's "financial issues"? Discuss.

I think it is really dumb. If the USA cannot afford to spend this much on the military, they can just reduce military expenditure. Nothing says that the USA has to spend the most. But, there is no point in spending a single cent on the military in the USA does not honor NATO.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:42:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/6/2016 4:00:23 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
A few weeks ago, Trump poke about his planned policies regarding NATO and our Asian allies. In the interview, Trump said that, if Russia attacked NATO, he would only defend them if those nations have "fulfilled their obligations to us." He said that he no longer wanted to defend allies if they continued to take advantage of America's "largess" (http://www.nytimes.com...). He continued with "They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they're supposed to make. That's a big thing. You can't say forget that." Some say that this threatens the whole alliance (http://www.nbcnews.com...). Trump didn't just refer to NATO with his "pay up or go it alone" policy. He said that if Japan and South Korea do not shoulder more of the cost of stationing US military personnel there, then "they will have to defend themselves". It should be noted that currently South Korean forces would fall under United States control should the war resume. He added "Our friends in Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia will be forced to recalculate their policies and rely less on US support." This of course goes along with Trump's "America First" policy, but can be seen as controversial (http://www.straitstimes.com...).

So, what's your opinion on this? Do you agree with this so-called "mercenary army"? Do you think it should only apply to NATO or do you agree with Trump's policy applying to all of the US's allies? How do you think this will affect the US's relationship with its allies? Do you think Trump's policies here would help relieve some of America's "financial issues"? Discuss.

I think that Japan should remilitarize to some degree (the recent collective defense measures that they're in the process of passing are a big step in the right direction) now that China is on the rise, and that the Baltic states are completely useless to NATO anyway unless they increase their military spending to make attrition in the case of war feasible. Russia isn't going to risk attacking a NATO country; they've already drawn their line in the sand, and it runs through Ukraine and Georgia.

Just a point of contention, Trump never said that he wouldn't defend a NATO ally who wouldn't pay up. He remained intentionally ambiguous about what he would do. Russia isn't going to try to occupy anyone anyway, imo, unless they are directly threatened as they were when Ukraine and Georgia were courted by NATO. And they certainly aren't going to occupy anyone if there is any doubt whatsoever over Article V being be invoked.

TRUMP: I don"t want to tell you what I"d do because I don"t want Putin to know what I"d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I"m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.
http://www.theatlantic.com...

This is a tempest in a teapot.
"The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art"
- T. S. Eliot -
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 5:04:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/6/2016 4:42:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:00:23 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
A few weeks ago, Trump poke about his planned policies regarding NATO and our Asian allies. In the interview, Trump said that, if Russia attacked NATO, he would only defend them if those nations have "fulfilled their obligations to us." He said that he no longer wanted to defend allies if they continued to take advantage of America's "largess" (http://www.nytimes.com...). He continued with "They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they're supposed to make. That's a big thing. You can't say forget that." Some say that this threatens the whole alliance (http://www.nbcnews.com...). Trump didn't just refer to NATO with his "pay up or go it alone" policy. He said that if Japan and South Korea do not shoulder more of the cost of stationing US military personnel there, then "they will have to defend themselves". It should be noted that currently South Korean forces would fall under United States control should the war resume. He added "Our friends in Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia will be forced to recalculate their policies and rely less on US support." This of course goes along with Trump's "America First" policy, but can be seen as controversial (http://www.straitstimes.com...).

So, what's your opinion on this? Do you agree with this so-called "mercenary army"? Do you think it should only apply to NATO or do you agree with Trump's policy applying to all of the US's allies? How do you think this will affect the US's relationship with its allies? Do you think Trump's policies here would help relieve some of America's "financial issues"? Discuss.

I think that Japan should remilitarize to some degree (the recent collective defense measures that they're in the process of passing are a big step in the right direction) now that China is on the rise, and that the Baltic states are completely useless to NATO anyway unless they increase their military spending to make attrition in the case of war feasible. Russia isn't going to risk attacking a NATO country; they've already drawn their line in the sand, and it runs through Ukraine and Georgia.

Just a point of contention, Trump never said that he wouldn't defend a NATO ally who wouldn't pay up. He remained intentionally ambiguous about what he would do. Russia isn't going to try to occupy anyone anyway, imo, unless they are directly threatened as they were when Ukraine and Georgia were courted by NATO. And they certainly aren't going to occupy anyone if there is any doubt whatsoever over Article V being be invoked.

TRUMP: I don"t want to tell you what I"d do because I don"t want Putin to know what I"d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I"m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.
http://www.theatlantic.com...

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Do you think Russia has to wait for the news story to know we move troops?

Look, Trump is as stupid as Nixon with his secret plan. He isn't saying, because he has no idea what to do.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 5:19:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/6/2016 5:04:59 PM, TBR wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:42:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:00:23 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
A few weeks ago, Trump poke about his planned policies regarding NATO and our Asian allies. In the interview, Trump said that, if Russia attacked NATO, he would only defend them if those nations have "fulfilled their obligations to us." He said that he no longer wanted to defend allies if they continued to take advantage of America's "largess" (http://www.nytimes.com...). He continued with "They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they're supposed to make. That's a big thing. You can't say forget that." Some say that this threatens the whole alliance (http://www.nbcnews.com...). Trump didn't just refer to NATO with his "pay up or go it alone" policy. He said that if Japan and South Korea do not shoulder more of the cost of stationing US military personnel there, then "they will have to defend themselves". It should be noted that currently South Korean forces would fall under United States control should the war resume. He added "Our friends in Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia will be forced to recalculate their policies and rely less on US support." This of course goes along with Trump's "America First" policy, but can be seen as controversial (http://www.straitstimes.com...).

So, what's your opinion on this? Do you agree with this so-called "mercenary army"? Do you think it should only apply to NATO or do you agree with Trump's policy applying to all of the US's allies? How do you think this will affect the US's relationship with its allies? Do you think Trump's policies here would help relieve some of America's "financial issues"? Discuss.

I think that Japan should remilitarize to some degree (the recent collective defense measures that they're in the process of passing are a big step in the right direction) now that China is on the rise, and that the Baltic states are completely useless to NATO anyway unless they increase their military spending to make attrition in the case of war feasible. Russia isn't going to risk attacking a NATO country; they've already drawn their line in the sand, and it runs through Ukraine and Georgia.

Just a point of contention, Trump never said that he wouldn't defend a NATO ally who wouldn't pay up. He remained intentionally ambiguous about what he would do. Russia isn't going to try to occupy anyone anyway, imo, unless they are directly threatened as they were when Ukraine and Georgia were courted by NATO. And they certainly aren't going to occupy anyone if there is any doubt whatsoever over Article V being be invoked.

TRUMP: I don't want to tell you what I'd do because I don't want Putin to know what I'd do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I'm not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.
http://www.theatlantic.com...

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Do you think Russia has to wait for the news story to know we move troops?

They'll know before we move them that we're moving them if it's announced on the news ahead of time, which would be impossible for anyone to otherwise know.

Look, Trump is as stupid as Nixon with his secret plan. He isn't saying, because he has no idea what to do.

I'm sure there must be a convincing argument in there somewhere, but I can't seem to be able to find it. Trump doesn't even have a 'secret plan', he's talking about a future invocation of Article V. It must be nice to know that you're always right ahead of time because 'my opponent is stoopid', even when you have no idea what's even being discussed. I imagine that that's a very comforting way to go through life.
"The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art"
- T. S. Eliot -
twocupcakes
Posts: 3,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 10:31:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/6/2016 5:19:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 5:04:59 PM, TBR wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:42:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:00:23 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
A few weeks ago, Trump poke about his planned policies regarding NATO and our Asian allies. In the interview, Trump said that, if Russia attacked NATO, he would only defend them if those nations have "fulfilled their obligations to us." He said that he no longer wanted to defend allies if they continued to take advantage of America's "largess" (http://www.nytimes.com...). He continued with "They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they're supposed to make. That's a big thing. You can't say forget that." Some say that this threatens the whole alliance (http://www.nbcnews.com...). Trump didn't just refer to NATO with his "pay up or go it alone" policy. He said that if Japan and South Korea do not shoulder more of the cost of stationing US military personnel there, then "they will have to defend themselves". It should be noted that currently South Korean forces would fall under United States control should the war resume. He added "Our friends in Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia will be forced to recalculate their policies and rely less on US support." This of course goes along with Trump's "America First" policy, but can be seen as controversial (http://www.straitstimes.com...).

So, what's your opinion on this? Do you agree with this so-called "mercenary army"? Do you think it should only apply to NATO or do you agree with Trump's policy applying to all of the US's allies? How do you think this will affect the US's relationship with its allies? Do you think Trump's policies here would help relieve some of America's "financial issues"? Discuss.

I think that Japan should remilitarize to some degree (the recent collective defense measures that they're in the process of passing are a big step in the right direction) now that China is on the rise, and that the Baltic states are completely useless to NATO anyway unless they increase their military spending to make attrition in the case of war feasible. Russia isn't going to risk attacking a NATO country; they've already drawn their line in the sand, and it runs through Ukraine and Georgia.

Just a point of contention, Trump never said that he wouldn't defend a NATO ally who wouldn't pay up. He remained intentionally ambiguous about what he would do. Russia isn't going to try to occupy anyone anyway, imo, unless they are directly threatened as they were when Ukraine and Georgia were courted by NATO. And they certainly aren't going to occupy anyone if there is any doubt whatsoever over Article V being be invoked.

TRUMP: I don't want to tell you what I'd do because I don't want Putin to know what I'd do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I'm not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.
http://www.theatlantic.com...

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Do you think Russia has to wait for the news story to know we move troops?

They'll know before we move them that we're moving them if it's announced on the news ahead of time, which would be impossible for anyone to otherwise know.

Look, Trump is as stupid as Nixon with his secret plan. He isn't saying, because he has no idea what to do.

I'm sure there must be a convincing argument in there somewhere, but I can't seem to be able to find it. Trump doesn't even have a 'secret plan', he's talking about a future invocation of Article V. It must be nice to know that you're always right ahead of time because 'my opponent is stoopid', even when you have no idea what's even being discussed. I imagine that that's a very comforting way to go through life.

Trump does have a "secret plan" to defeat ISIS that is completely foolproof. He just can't share it with anyone so because he does not want ISIS to find out what it is. Sounds legit to me. Why why would Trump bullshiit us about a secret plan?

"If I run, and if I win, I don"t want the enemy to know what I"m doing," Trump said of the Islamic extremist terrorist group that has been steadily causing trouble in the Middle East. "Unfortunately, I"ll probably have to tell at some point, but there is a method of defeating them quickly and effectively and having total victory."

"All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning, and I"m not talking about what some people would say, but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS," he said. "And it will be absolutely, 100 percent "they"ll at minimum come to the table but actually they"ll be defeated very quickly."


http://www.thewrap.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 2:41:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/6/2016 10:31:09 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 8/6/2016 5:19:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 5:04:59 PM, TBR wrote:

Do you think Russia has to wait for the news story to know we move troops?

They'll know before we move them that we're moving them if it's announced on the news ahead of time, which would be impossible for anyone to otherwise know.

Look, Trump is as stupid as Nixon with his secret plan. He isn't saying, because he has no idea what to do.

I'm sure there must be a convincing argument in there somewhere, but I can't seem to be able to find it. Trump doesn't even have a 'secret plan', he's talking about a future invocation of Article V. It must be nice to know that you're always right ahead of time because 'my opponent is stoopid', even when you have no idea what's even being discussed. I imagine that that's a very comforting way to go through life.

Trump does have a "secret plan" to defeat ISIS that is completely foolproof. He just can't share it with anyone so because he does not want ISIS to find out what it is. Sounds legit to me. Why why would Trump bullshiit us about a secret plan?


"If I run, and if I win, I don"t want the enemy to know what I"m doing," Trump said of the Islamic extremist terrorist group that has been steadily causing trouble in the Middle East. "Unfortunately, I"ll probably have to tell at some point, but there is a method of defeating them quickly and effectively and having total victory."

"All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning, and I"m not talking about what some people would say, but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS," he said. "And it will be absolutely, 100 percent "they"ll at minimum come to the table but actually they"ll be defeated very quickly."


http://www.thewrap.com...

There is a foolproof way to defeat ISIS. It's to sit down at the table with Russia and combine strengths to restore the status quo ante in Syria. ISIS would be wiped out very quickly.
"The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art"
- T. S. Eliot -
Greyparrot
Posts: 15,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 3:19:33 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/6/2016 10:31:09 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Trump does have a "secret plan" to defeat ISIS that is completely foolproof. He just can't share it with anyone so because he does not want ISIS to find out what it is. Sounds legit to me. Why why would Trump bullshiit us about a secret plan?

I'll take a bullcrap plan anyday over 20 years of "transparent" failed policies.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
lannan13
Posts: 23,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 4:11:43 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
US should defend NATO nations period.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 4:51:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/6/2016 4:00:23 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
A few weeks ago, Trump poke about his planned policies regarding NATO and our Asian allies. In the interview, Trump said that, if Russia attacked NATO, he would only defend them if those nations have "fulfilled their obligations to us." He said that he no longer wanted to defend allies if they continued to take advantage of America's "largess" (http://www.nytimes.com...). He continued with "They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they're supposed to make. That's a big thing. You can't say forget that." Some say that this threatens the whole alliance (http://www.nbcnews.com...). Trump didn't just refer to NATO with his "pay up or go it alone" policy. He said that if Japan and South Korea do not shoulder more of the cost of stationing US military personnel there, then "they will have to defend themselves". It should be noted that currently South Korean forces would fall under United States control should the war resume. He added "Our friends in Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia will be forced to recalculate their policies and rely less on US support." This of course goes along with Trump's "America First" policy, but can be seen as controversial (http://www.straitstimes.com...).

So, what's your opinion on this? Do you agree with this so-called "mercenary army"? Do you think it should only apply to NATO or do you agree with Trump's policy applying to all of the US's allies? How do you think this will affect the US's relationship with its allies? Do you think Trump's policies here would help relieve some of America's "financial issues"? Discuss.

We don't owe any nation anything. Who elected us world defender? They wouldn't defend us. Screw em.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
twocupcakes
Posts: 3,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 10:40:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/7/2016 2:41:48 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 10:31:09 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 8/6/2016 5:19:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 5:04:59 PM, TBR wrote:

Do you think Russia has to wait for the news story to know we move troops?

They'll know before we move them that we're moving them if it's announced on the news ahead of time, which would be impossible for anyone to otherwise know.

Look, Trump is as stupid as Nixon with his secret plan. He isn't saying, because he has no idea what to do.

I'm sure there must be a convincing argument in there somewhere, but I can't seem to be able to find it. Trump doesn't even have a 'secret plan', he's talking about a future invocation of Article V. It must be nice to know that you're always right ahead of time because 'my opponent is stoopid', even when you have no idea what's even being discussed. I imagine that that's a very comforting way to go through life.

Trump does have a "secret plan" to defeat ISIS that is completely foolproof. He just can't share it with anyone so because he does not want ISIS to find out what it is. Sounds legit to me. Why why would Trump bullshiit us about a secret plan?


"If I run, and if I win, I don"t want the enemy to know what I"m doing," Trump said of the Islamic extremist terrorist group that has been steadily causing trouble in the Middle East. "Unfortunately, I"ll probably have to tell at some point, but there is a method of defeating them quickly and effectively and having total victory."

"All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning, and I"m not talking about what some people would say, but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS," he said. "And it will be absolutely, 100 percent "they"ll at minimum come to the table but actually they"ll be defeated very quickly."


http://www.thewrap.com...

There is a foolproof way to defeat ISIS. It's to sit down at the table with Russia and combine strengths to restore the status quo ante in Syria. ISIS would be wiped out very quickly.

The USA alone could easily wipe out ISIS no problem. The question is what comes after ISIS. Also, attacking ISIS will increase the amount of refugees.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 10:55:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/7/2016 10:40:18 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 8/7/2016 2:41:48 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 10:31:09 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 8/6/2016 5:19:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 5:04:59 PM, TBR wrote:

Do you think Russia has to wait for the news story to know we move troops?

They'll know before we move them that we're moving them if it's announced on the news ahead of time, which would be impossible for anyone to otherwise know.

Look, Trump is as stupid as Nixon with his secret plan. He isn't saying, because he has no idea what to do.

I'm sure there must be a convincing argument in there somewhere, but I can't seem to be able to find it. Trump doesn't even have a 'secret plan', he's talking about a future invocation of Article V. It must be nice to know that you're always right ahead of time because 'my opponent is stoopid', even when you have no idea what's even being discussed. I imagine that that's a very comforting way to go through life.

Trump does have a "secret plan" to defeat ISIS that is completely foolproof. He just can't share it with anyone so because he does not want ISIS to find out what it is. Sounds legit to me. Why why would Trump bullshiit us about a secret plan?


"If I run, and if I win, I don"t want the enemy to know what I"m doing," Trump said of the Islamic extremist terrorist group that has been steadily causing trouble in the Middle East. "Unfortunately, I"ll probably have to tell at some point, but there is a method of defeating them quickly and effectively and having total victory."

"All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning, and I"m not talking about what some people would say, but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS," he said. "And it will be absolutely, 100 percent "they"ll at minimum come to the table but actually they"ll be defeated very quickly."


http://www.thewrap.com...

There is a foolproof way to defeat ISIS. It's to sit down at the table with Russia and combine strengths to restore the status quo ante in Syria. ISIS would be wiped out very quickly.

The USA alone could easily wipe out ISIS no problem. The question is what comes after ISIS. Also, attacking ISIS will increase the amount of refugees.

If we could do it without helping Assad, we would have. We cannot wipe out ISIS while supporting the insurgency, and that is what Washington wants to pretend isn't the case, because this administration is stuck in a ridiculous mode of Cold War thinking.
"The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art"
- T. S. Eliot -
slo1
Posts: 4,705
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 11:55:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/7/2016 10:55:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/7/2016 10:40:18 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 8/7/2016 2:41:48 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 10:31:09 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 8/6/2016 5:19:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/6/2016 5:04:59 PM, TBR wrote:

Do you think Russia has to wait for the news story to know we move troops?

They'll know before we move them that we're moving them if it's announced on the news ahead of time, which would be impossible for anyone to otherwise know.

Look, Trump is as stupid as Nixon with his secret plan. He isn't saying, because he has no idea what to do.

I'm sure there must be a convincing argument in there somewhere, but I can't seem to be able to find it. Trump doesn't even have a 'secret plan', he's talking about a future invocation of Article V. It must be nice to know that you're always right ahead of time because 'my opponent is stoopid', even when you have no idea what's even being discussed. I imagine that that's a very comforting way to go through life.

Trump does have a "secret plan" to defeat ISIS that is completely foolproof. He just can't share it with anyone so because he does not want ISIS to find out what it is. Sounds legit to me. Why why would Trump bullshiit us about a secret plan?


"If I run, and if I win, I don"t want the enemy to know what I"m doing," Trump said of the Islamic extremist terrorist group that has been steadily causing trouble in the Middle East. "Unfortunately, I"ll probably have to tell at some point, but there is a method of defeating them quickly and effectively and having total victory."

"All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning, and I"m not talking about what some people would say, but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS," he said. "And it will be absolutely, 100 percent "they"ll at minimum come to the table but actually they"ll be defeated very quickly."


http://www.thewrap.com...

There is a foolproof way to defeat ISIS. It's to sit down at the table with Russia and combine strengths to restore the status quo ante in Syria. ISIS would be wiped out very quickly.

The USA alone could easily wipe out ISIS no problem. The question is what comes after ISIS. Also, attacking ISIS will increase the amount of refugees.

If we could do it without helping Assad, we would have. We cannot wipe out ISIS while supporting the insurgency, and that is what Washington wants to pretend isn't the case, because this administration is stuck in a ridiculous mode of Cold War thinking.

Lol, Syria has been on the State sponsor of terrorism list since 1979 and funding warefare against Israel and now Conservatives want to work with Assad and Russia. What a joke.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 12:32:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/7/2016 11:55:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/7/2016 10:55:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/7/2016 10:40:18 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
The USA alone could easily wipe out ISIS no problem. The question is what comes after ISIS. Also, attacking ISIS will increase the amount of refugees.

If we could do it without helping Assad, we would have. We cannot wipe out ISIS while supporting the insurgency, and that is what Washington wants to pretend isn't the case, because this administration is stuck in a ridiculous mode of Cold War thinking.

Lol, Syria has been on the State sponsor of terrorism list since 1979 and funding warefare against Israel and now Conservatives want to work with Assad and Russia. What a joke.

Lol, as if that list means anything if it doesn't include Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The thing Clinton does get right is a pivot to Asia. If we are going to contain China, we need closer ties with Russia, not more alienation and pointless conflict.

If you would listen to Trump supporters (or informed commentators) you would realize that Trump represents a step away from the ridiculous foreign policy of bygone years.
"The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art"
- T. S. Eliot -
slo1
Posts: 4,705
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 4:22:39 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 12:32:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/7/2016 11:55:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/7/2016 10:55:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/7/2016 10:40:18 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
The USA alone could easily wipe out ISIS no problem. The question is what comes after ISIS. Also, attacking ISIS will increase the amount of refugees.

If we could do it without helping Assad, we would have. We cannot wipe out ISIS while supporting the insurgency, and that is what Washington wants to pretend isn't the case, because this administration is stuck in a ridiculous mode of Cold War thinking.

Lol, Syria has been on the State sponsor of terrorism list since 1979 and funding warefare against Israel and now Conservatives want to work with Assad and Russia. What a joke.

Lol, as if that list means anything if it doesn't include Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The thing Clinton does get right is a pivot to Asia. If we are going to contain China, we need closer ties with Russia, not more alienation and pointless conflict.

If you would listen to Trump supporters (or informed commentators) you would realize that Trump represents a step away from the ridiculous foreign policy of bygone years.

You have zero evidence that the state of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism thus why they have never been placed on the list over the past 6 administrations. However with your position one would at least be alarmed that Trump advocates SA gets its own nuclear weapons.

If you want to be a step away from befriending state sponsor of terrorism that lies in bed with Iran and Hezbullah go for it. You can't win supporting Trump's foreign policy because it is clearly is no policy other than random contradictions that make no sense.
Greyparrot
Posts: 15,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 4:32:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:22:39 AM, slo1 wrote:

You have zero evidence that the state of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism thus why they have never been placed on the list over the past 6 administrations.

Now that's just silly. Even for you to be an apologizer for Saudi.

While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar), Saudi Arabia arguably remains the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
slo1
Posts: 4,705
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 4:38:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:32:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:22:39 AM, slo1 wrote:

You have zero evidence that the state of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism thus why they have never been placed on the list over the past 6 administrations.

Now that's just silly. Even for you to be an apologizer for Saudi.

While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar), Saudi Arabia arguably remains the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.

There is a difference between state and civilian support for terrorism. Btw I'm no SA supporter. It is one of most vile countries on earth and unlike your hero, I don't believe they should have nuclear weapons
Greyparrot
Posts: 15,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 4:41:30 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:38:21 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:32:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:22:39 AM, slo1 wrote:

You have zero evidence that the state of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism thus why they have never been placed on the list over the past 6 administrations.

Now that's just silly. Even for you to be an apologizer for Saudi.

While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar), Saudi Arabia arguably remains the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.

There is a difference between state and civilian support for terrorism. Btw I'm no SA supporter. It is one of most vile countries on earth and unlike your hero, I don't believe they should have nuclear weapons

Then you agree with him that they shouldn't have access to our nuclear arsenal as well if they won't pay us for that service. And if they won't pay us, then they will get their own anyway once we pull out of the middle east shithole forever because even SA will have to deal with the inevitable Iranian nukes.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Greyparrot
Posts: 15,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 5:02:06 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/6/2016 4:10:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I think it is really dumb. If the USA cannot afford to spend this much on the military, they can just reduce military expenditure. Nothing says that the USA has to spend the most. But, there is no point in spending a single cent on the military in the USA does not honor NATO.

This will be the final nail in the Coffin of the experiment of European Socialism. Once the Eurotrash see the bill and realize 2% of the GDP for defense is not nearly enough, they can either choose to dump Socialism, or become conquered nations.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 5:22:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:38:21 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:32:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:22:39 AM, slo1 wrote:

You have zero evidence that the state of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism thus why they have never been placed on the list over the past 6 administrations.

Now that's just silly. Even for you to be an apologizer for Saudi.

While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar), Saudi Arabia arguably remains the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.

There is a difference between state and civilian support for terrorism.

There is, but that isn't reflected in the State Department's classification, which is basically a 'people we don't like' list.

Btw I'm no SA supporter. It is one of most vile countries on earth and unlike your hero, I don't believe they should have nuclear weapons

I think that they should have nuclear weapons if Iran does, because otherwise you're probably going to end up with a full-blown war in the region.

The Saudis either want a nuclear deterrent, they want a nuclear sharing deal like Turkey has (NATO gives them a nuclear arsenal for defensive purposes in case of war should the alliance go nuclear (for MAD purposes)), or they want a nuclear-free Middle East. They will either get one of those options, or the Middle East will bleed.

They can also always turn to Pakistan, and it's MUCH better for us to maintain control over any arsenal positioned there than it is to allow them to go shopping for nukes around the world. So, once again, Trump isn't being 'stoopid', most Americans just have a cartoonish view of foreign policy.
"The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art"
- T. S. Eliot -
Greyparrot
Posts: 15,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 6:13:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 5:22:38 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:38:21 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:32:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:22:39 AM, slo1 wrote:

You have zero evidence that the state of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism thus why they have never been placed on the list over the past 6 administrations.

Now that's just silly. Even for you to be an apologizer for Saudi.

While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar), Saudi Arabia arguably remains the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.

There is a difference between state and civilian support for terrorism.

There is, but that isn't reflected in the State Department's classification, which is basically a 'people we don't like' list.

Btw I'm no SA supporter. It is one of most vile countries on earth and unlike your hero, I don't believe they should have nuclear weapons

I think that they should have nuclear weapons if Iran does, because otherwise you're probably going to end up with a full-blown war in the region.

The Saudis either want a nuclear deterrent, they want a nuclear sharing deal like Turkey has (NATO gives them a nuclear arsenal for defensive purposes in case of war should the alliance go nuclear (for MAD purposes)), or they want a nuclear-free Middle East. They will either get one of those options, or the Middle East will bleed.

They can also always turn to Pakistan, and it's MUCH better for us to maintain control over any arsenal positioned there than it is to allow them to go shopping for nukes around the world. So, once again, Trump isn't being 'stoopid', most Americans just have a cartoonish view of foreign policy.

You are so much more eloquent than I. :(
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
slo1
Posts: 4,705
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 2:44:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:41:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:38:21 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:32:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:22:39 AM, slo1 wrote:

You have zero evidence that the state of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism thus why they have never been placed on the list over the past 6 administrations.

Now that's just silly. Even for you to be an apologizer for Saudi.

While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar), Saudi Arabia arguably remains the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.

There is a difference between state and civilian support for terrorism. Btw I'm no SA supporter. It is one of most vile countries on earth and unlike your hero, I don't believe they should have nuclear weapons

Then you agree with him that they shouldn't have access to our nuclear arsenal as well if they won't pay us for that service. And if they won't pay us, then they will get their own anyway once we pull out of the middle east shithole forever because even SA will have to deal with the inevitable Iranian nukes.

Yes, increased risk and volatility of total world destruction should be a US policy. It is time to grow up and realize that nuclear proliferation is not a good thing.
slo1
Posts: 4,705
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 2:58:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 5:22:38 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:38:21 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:32:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:22:39 AM, slo1 wrote:

You have zero evidence that the state of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism thus why they have never been placed on the list over the past 6 administrations.

Now that's just silly. Even for you to be an apologizer for Saudi.

While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar), Saudi Arabia arguably remains the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.

There is a difference between state and civilian support for terrorism.

There is, but that isn't reflected in the State Department's classification, which is basically a 'people we don't like' list.

Btw I'm no SA supporter. It is one of most vile countries on earth and unlike your hero, I don't believe they should have nuclear weapons

I think that they should have nuclear weapons if Iran does, because otherwise you're probably going to end up with a full-blown war in the region.

The Saudis either want a nuclear deterrent, they want a nuclear sharing deal like Turkey has (NATO gives them a nuclear arsenal for defensive purposes in case of war should the alliance go nuclear (for MAD purposes)), or they want a nuclear-free Middle East. They will either get one of those options, or the Middle East will bleed.

They can also always turn to Pakistan, and it's MUCH better for us to maintain control over any arsenal positioned there than it is to allow them to go shopping for nukes around the world. So, once again, Trump isn't being 'stoopid', most Americans just have a cartoonish view of foreign policy.

Yes it is stupid to advance the notion of nuclear proliferation. You just stated that it is better for us to maintain control over NUC support for SA, yet Trump advocates they should go shopping for their own, which would destroy the NUC Non Proliferation Treaty.

I think you need to understand Trump's position prior to claiming they are not stupid.
Greyparrot
Posts: 15,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 4:06:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 2:44:33 PM, slo1 wrote:

Yes, increased risk and volatility of total world destruction should be a US policy. It is time to grow up and realize that nuclear proliferation is not a good thing.

While you are "growing up"...read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
slo1
Posts: 4,705
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 4:17:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:06:24 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:44:33 PM, slo1 wrote:

Yes, increased risk and volatility of total world destruction should be a US policy. It is time to grow up and realize that nuclear proliferation is not a good thing.

While you are "growing up"...read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

OK, so you and trump want nuclear proliferation with except to Iran. If that makes sense to you, go for it.

As far as discussing the most effective way to ensure Iran honors their commitment to the mononuclear proliferation treaty when the status quo of sanctions was not working is another thread.
Greyparrot
Posts: 15,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 4:31:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 8/8/2016 4:17:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/8/2016 4:06:24 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:44:33 PM, slo1 wrote:

Yes, increased risk and volatility of total world destruction should be a US policy. It is time to grow up and realize that nuclear proliferation is not a good thing.

While you are "growing up"...read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

OK, so you and trump want nuclear proliferation with except to Iran. If that makes sense to you, go for it.

As far as discussing the most effective way to ensure Iran honors their commitment to the mononuclear proliferation treaty when the status quo of sanctions was not working is another thread.

Sure, maybe Iran can hold the USA for ransom James Bond SPECTRE style, demanding payouts, or they will get the bomb.....

Would be a funny joke to consider if not for the recent cash payout of 400 million.

How much will it cost next time?
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.