THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Viktorthepirate]

Something tells me punitive expedition isn't gonna go over any better, but I prefer that tactic more than nation building.

I think it would be ok. We bomb "neutral" nations with flying death robots and it's ok.

Right, but we don't call it that.

My President, you were elected because you campaigned against nation building.

Oh, this is just a punitive expedition

Imagine the headlines.

Trump might as well change the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of WAR!!!

true

[Fife]

https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/900064800180404224

[ssu]

https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/900064800180404224

There he is correct that Trump didn't have any philosophy.

And how did the military (or should I say the deep state here) get Trump? By Mattis and McMaster being the last guys in the room when it's national security issues to be discussed. And NO BANNON! (Yeah sure, there's Jared and Ivanka, but they don't have their own agenda at least when it comes to Afghanistan)

That's how simple these things are.

[Fife]

There is no "deep" state. There's just the state.

[StCapps]

There is no "deep" state. There's just the state.

So you are saying the state is shallow?

[The Conservative]

Actually, I find Mattis to be both an intellectual, and ultra professional, he operates entirely within the confines of national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, he doesn't actually have a blood lust at all, quite the opposite, Mattis is not like some sort of comic book anti-hero who goes around slaughtering people with abandon, he's the polar opposite of that, which is why "Mad Dog" offends his sensiblities.

Like, if this is the X-Men, Mattis is not Wolverine, he's Proffesor X.

And Professor X even knows when to fight though. There is a point in time where peace is given a chance, but even so, there is a point in time where violence if required, and civilians will be hurt or killed, but even Professor X knew that keeping it at a minimum was for the best. So does Mattis.

He isn't afraid to spill some blood if need be, be he does keep civilians out of it if possible. But if given marching orders, he will rip the head off the enemy and shove it down their throat, because that is what he was trained to do. You don't half-ass with this man, he does it right or not at all.

But what is right? Can you give me specific examples where this ruthless tactic would help our nation building strategy?

I personally think we should have shown up, blown shit up, and left. While promising to do it all over again if they fucked up again. A punitive expedition.

Nation building just isn't a winnable goal without sacrificing our values, which isn't in our interest.

The Mongols and Mughals conquered Afghanistan, literally depopulated entire areas doing it however.

If I'm occupied by Chinese troops and they blow up my house and kill my kids, I gives a fuck what they meant to do, I'm killing me some Chinese in my black pajamas at night.

The US never should have been in the position of nation building. That is what the UN is for.

As for the rest. Straw-Man argument.

[Speaker to Animals]

Ron Paul is still alive?

He must look like one of those old confederate soldiers you see in old reel-to-reel footage where soldiers reunited on the battlefields of the war around the turn of the last century.

[C-Mag]

The US never should have been in the position of nation building. That is what the UN is for.

We've been doing it for a Century, ever since the Progressives took over.

Nation Building is fine, but you can only do it with complete capitulation by the host country. Unless you are will to do what it takes to completely destroy opposition, it will never work. Examples

Phillipines - we brutalized the shit out of the opposition until they gave up and we colonialized it.
WWI - Failed to fully defeat or occupy the enemy, we get to fight them again
WWII - Complete destruction, Nation Building works
Korea - South Korea completely capitulated to the US/UN as they knew they had to pick a ruler Commies or Progs
Vietnam - tried to Nation Build while fighting, didn't work
remainder of wars, see above

[The Conservative]

The US never should have been in the position of nation building. That is what the UN is for.

We've been doing it for a Century, ever since the Progressives took over.

Nation Building is fine, but you can only do it with complete capitulation by the host country. Unless you are will to do what it takes to completely destroy opposition, it will never work. Examples

Phillipines - we brutalized the shit out of the opposition until they gave up and we colonialized it.
WWI - Failed to fully defeat or occupy the enemy, we get to fight them again
WWII - Complete destruction, Nation Building works
Korea - South Korea completely capitulated to the US/UN as they knew they had to pick a ruler Commies or Progs
Vietnam - tried to Nation Build while fighting, didn't work
remainder of wars, see above

As I said, the US never should have been in the business of nation building.

[apeman]

Top item in FAcebook's "trending" section:

Hillary Clinton
Clinton wanted to say ‘back up, you creep’ to Trump at debate: memoir ‑ thehill.com

Now, of course, even assuming their are infinite dimensions playing out simultaneously, in none of the infinite dimensions does anybody believe this to be organically trending as the top "trending" news today.