Meanwhile in Iraq & Syria

[C-Mag]

Embrace the suck, I guess. Trump fucked us.

Trump promised to "totally destroy ISIS" and then demanded that the Pentagon "give him a plan in 30 days", so clearly there was going to be some military action coming down the pike, and Trump made no bones about it, "totally destroy" is obviously rhetorical, but even if you're going to give them a bloody nose, it's going to take more than launching a few TLAM's in there, not telling you something you don't know.

Not opposed to destroying ISIS. I am opposed to creating another Iraq in Syria.

The Russians are right: restore the government. Stop toppling nation states.

I listened to Tillerson being interviewed today by Stephanopolos. Rex made very clear that Regime Change is not part of a policy of this Administration. Not in Syria, not in North Korea. I've had similar concerns as you Doc, this eased my mind a bit.

[Smitty-48]

I could rationalize that but basically bitch slapping Assad without trial or jury is sending the wrong message here. It sounds like more nation building rhetoric.

Well that's the thing, the danger is not miltiary action in of itself per se, the danger is military action under the auspices of the Humanitarian Pixie Dust, the mixing of the humanitarian and the military is the problem, just stick to kicking ass taking names and pounding the shit out of ISIS, followed by displacing back to a sanctuary to reload for another round as necessary, but yeah, you're right, the issue is having the discipline to do it lean mean and green, without succumbing to the liberal bleat whining about "ZOMG save the children!"

The military is for killing people and breaking things, and the cycle that has to be broken, is trying curry favour with the squeamish, bleeding hearts, panty waists, and liberals, by asserting to be anything else, to include a police force and/or social welfare agency.

[Montegriffo]

I was fine with Hussein and ghadafi. They never called me white trash.

Paraphrasing Mohammed

[SuburbanFarmer]

I could rationalize that but basically bitch slapping Assad without trial or jury is sending the wrong message here. It sounds like more nation building rhetoric.

Well that's the thing, the danger is not miltiary action in of itself per se, the danger is military action under the auspices of the Humanitarian Pixie Dust, the mixing of the humanitarian and the military is the problem, just stick to kicking ass taking names and pounding the shit out of ISIS, followed by displacing back to a sanctuary to reload for another round as necessary, but yeah, you're right, the issue is having the discipline to do it lean mean and green, without succumbing to the liberal bleat whining about "ZOMG save the children!"

The military is for killing people and breaking things, and the cycle that has to be broken, is trying curry favour with the squeamish, bleeding hearts, panty waists, and liberals, by asserting to be anything else, to include a police force and/or social welfare agency.

I agree. Split half the military budget off into a humanitarian aid force.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Trump promised to "totally destroy ISIS" and then demanded that the Pentagon "give him a plan in 30 days", so clearly there was going to be some military action coming down the pike, and Trump made no bones about it, "totally destroy" is obviously rhetorical, but even if you're going to give them a bloody nose, it's going to take more than launching a few TLAM's in there, not telling you something you don't know.

Not opposed to destroying ISIS. I am opposed to creating another Iraq in Syria.

The Russians are right: restore the government. Stop toppling nation states.

I listened to Tillerson being interviewed today by Stephanopolos. Rex made very clear that Regime Change is not part of a policy of this Administration. Not in Syria, not in North Korea. I've had similar concerns as you Doc, this eased my mind a bit.

Do you honestly not remember Cheney and Rummy saying the same shit about Iraq II and Afghanistan?

[TheReal_ND]

Humanitarian aid can be just as cancerous for foreign regimes though. They almost never leave their politics at the door and always attempt to push a neo-lib agenda.

Do you honestly not remember Cheney and Rummy saying the same shit about Iraq II and Afghanistan?

Also this. Actions speak louder than words here.

[Smitty-48]

I agree. Split half the military budget off into a humanitarian aid force.

Humanitarian Aid ain't so humanitarian, most of it ends up propping up dictatorships and tyrants, because you can't control it once you hand it over, and dictators and tyrants simply use it as a lever to stay in power, doling it out based on their needs rather than the people you are trying to help.

All those regimes are propped up by Western Aid, the aid prevents things from ever reaching a crisis point where the corrupt economies collapse by market forces, inciting the revolution which will bring down the regimes internally.

The tyranical regimes and their corrupt economies are the cause which creates the conditions warranting the aid, so you're just setting up a self licking ice cream cone, which itself perpetuates the problem.

In the end, when you prop up these regimes with aid and prevent them from being brought down internally under the weight their own corruption and incompetence, this sets up the scenario where the Humanitarian Pixie Dust comes into play, forced regime change by external forces, instead of just letting the regimes collapse on their own and having the locals do it and work through it.

[heydaralon]

I agree. Split half the military budget off into a humanitarian aid force.

Humanitarian Aid ain't so humanitarian, most of it ends up propping up dictatorships and tyrants, because you can't control it once you hand it over, and dictators and tyrants simply use it as a lever to stay in power, doling it out based on their needs rather than the people you are trying to help.

All those regimes are propped up by Western Aid, the aid prevents things from ever reaching a crisis point where the corrupt economies collapse by market forces, inciting the revolution which will bring down the tyrnaical regimes.

We gave a bunch of humanitarian aid in the 70's and 80's to African despots and told them to change their ways. They totally did and Africa is doing great now!

[TheReal_ND]

Implying we still don't give them money and food.

The greatest humanitarian aid we ever gave Africa were colonies like Rhodesia and SA.

[Fife]

I could rationalize that but basically bitch slapping Assad without trial or jury is sending the wrong message here. It sounds like more nation building rhetoric.

Well that's the thing, the danger is not miltiary action in of itself per se, the danger is military action under the auspices of the Humanitarian Pixie Dust, the mixing of the humanitarian and the military is the problem, just stick to kicking ass taking names and pounding the shit out of ISIS, followed by displacing back to a sanctuary to reload for another round as necessary, but yeah, you're right, the issue is having the discipline to do it lean mean and green, without succumbing to the liberal bleat whining about "ZOMG save the children!"

The military is for killing people and breaking things, and the cycle that has to be broken, is trying curry favour with the squeamish, bleeding hearts, panty waists, and liberals, by asserting to be anything else, to include a police force and/or social welfare agency.

I agree. Split half the military budget off into a humanitarian aid force.

Split 80% off into a humanitarian aid force. Then immediately shut down the humanitarian aid force. I'd take that as an opening move.