Damned if we do and damned if we don't

[Walker]

Actually, the USA has not been at war with any nations or factions since WWII.

Oh really.

Bomb strikes are an act of war, but in the scandal-free Bizzaro World of B.O., probably not.

Act of war defined.
18 U.S. Code § 2331
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

(4)the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A)
declared war;
(B)
armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C)
armed conflict between military forces of any origin

Know thyself:
“Being around me is really stupid. I’m at war with the world and everybody in it.”
- Mannie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWDwWuqrPoY

[commonsense]

I know a guy from Nincompoopgonad.

[Impenitent]

I know a guy from Nincompoopgonad.

guilt by association or what?

-Imp

[gaffo]

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/24/67981357 ... rawal-plan

Quote from a Syrian Kurd in the article:

"If they [US forces] will leave, we will curse them as traitors," he says. "The Kurds helped them to destroy ISIS. ... I have seven people from my family who were fighting ISIS and who were killed. And they were very young, not even in their 20s."

This is so weird. I thought ISIS was the one running around remorselessly killing people (like the Kurds) and that we were there helping the Kurds defend themselves from them. Now the story seems to be that we weren't defending the Kurds at all, they were fighting for us to help us get what we wanted or something?

It's so difficult to follow who is helping who anymore.

indeed diff to follow.

Kurds are tough, denied their homeland promised in 1914? via the brits. promise not kept.

and making it the last 30 yrs on the ground in northern iraq - in reality if not on writing on a document.

they are fighters and will end up ok, even when "we" leave.

This is why I really hate it when our leaders send our troops ANYWHERE for ANYTHING (unless it was to actually repel an invasion force that was about to land on US soil or something). We literally can't do ANYTYHING right. If we keep our troops there, we're just a bunch of militarists who are interfering in someone else's politics. If we withdraw, then we're betraying the people we were supposed to have been defending. It sounds like what happened with Vietnam when the "communists" finally won and people were fleeing in droves from all their reprisals.

agreed, there are smart wars and dumb ones (civlians of the army partaking need to learn which is which - Nam, and Iraqnam were dumb, first Gulf War not dumb).

Vietnamese in the south had a reason/life worth defending, but not at "our" American's evolvment - since we are defending the former French colonial regime (sadly Zia/etc did not defend his citizen's liberty over thier own enrghment/corruption.............and we (americans) had no busness in defending the corruption).

i feel for and affirm the South Vietnamese "ave joe" - liberty, but when the head of thier State is a corrupt dick, i do not affirm our involvment in said war.

Or maybe that's what happened with OBL when the US stopped funding the rebels in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

1980's per US interests at the time (OBL opposed the Soviets) supporting OBL was the correct actions per US interests.

no-one is a fortune teller, given the knows in 1980's support of OBL was the better via the lesser of evils.

it was a good call at the time and one I would have made too.

OBL suddenly found himself surrounded by a bunch of poorly armed but angry malcontents who decided to turn around and take it out on the people who were at first aiding them. International politics is nothing but a shit show.

[/quote]
OBL had his personal motives only he and his closest would know about - and prob shifted after removing the Soviets.

I'm glad he was killed by Obama - he served the US well prior, but glad he was killed latter.

Had we just stayed out of all this to begin with, things would have been so much better.

must be nice to play armchair quarterback..................but in the real world hindsight is not a given.

There wouldn't have been anything to have reprisals over. No one would be angry at us or feel like we betrayed them. Or maybe we should just stick it out and "finish what we started". Maybe the problem is that we're giving up when we should be fighting harder and fighting to the finish?

see above.

[gaffo]

we aren't nation building anymore...

-Imp

thank gawd - no thanks to Chaney and his puppet Bush Jr (much respect to Sr - none to Jr).

former understood/had a mind for foreign policy, son was a loser that understood nothing.

[gaffo]

we aren't nation building anymore...

-Imp

Unfortunately we seem to have retained our talent at wrecking the shit out of them, though. However, with that kind of ability, maybe it's best to keep a distance and just leave well enough alone? I don't know if that Kurdish man quoted in the article really understands what he's saying. He and his people will be much better off without the kind of sheer force and power he's wishing were standing behind him.

American's nation building is behind us (Iraqnam anyone?)..............China is now claiming Pakistan/Africa.................they are welcome to it.

as the rising power it is all forseen, and ok by me, i accept it (though think most americans are still getting their panties in a bunch over the South China Sea Islands/pak/africa.....................

ok fine, Americans, play the 40 yrs earlier Brit game of Ostriche................sun never sets upon...............

ok fools play your games, i know reality in the real world and ok accepting it.


Kurks are tough, they will be fine and make their nation out our help.

God bless them BTW.

[gaffo]

Discussion about the wall deserves it’s own thread.

We certainly are damned if we escalate troop strength, and damned if we withdraw. Either way, there will be more casualties. It’s only a matter of whether the casualties are American or Syrian.

Whatever the reasons were for joining this multi-sided civil war, the goal of war is to win. If winning is not possible,

its not that simple - originaly in Syria as in Lybia, the original opposers were the eductated - latter they were taken over buy the fundies.

as was the case in Vietnam,

nam was different - one needs to know history, nam was more like Algeria - a colonial war.

Lydia/Syria are different - but i sure each of them have a local culture/dynamic outside of colonializm i lack knowledge of.

then a peace treaty must be sought through diplomatic channels.,

I suuport peace, but for that to be a reality, both sides have to have parity, otherise its folly.

WRT to Syria, that day was 3 yrs ago, to today and so no reason for Assad to seak peace when he can remove his opponent on the field.

Lybia is now what? (no clue since 24 hr news channel do not educate me - 2 ? 3 ? city states via Lydia these last 5 yrs?)

In seeking a peace treaty,

again see above, i support peace, but that is only apt when the balences of power is near equal, today they are no longer and to assume a peace treaty there is folly on our part, assad has no reason now to seek peace treaty when he can and prob will get it on the battlefield.

it is best to negotiate from a position of strength.

nope, for from that position there is no incentive for negotiations!!!!!!!!!!!

[gaffo]

Peace-keepers.

War-keepers.

The communist slogan after WWII was "Luptem Petru Pace", which is, "let's fight for peace".

This is one famous logical conundrum. If you want peace, you need to be strong militarily to frighten your would-be invaders to the degree that they will give up the idea of invading before the attack.

This gives rise to "negotiate from the position of strength". What strength do you have, if the enemy does not see you as strength? If you are getting your toosh kicked, so much so that you want to withdraw, who is going to see you as "strong"?
------------------------
In conclusion to my babbling: In a way, military victory is like sex. If you are getting your toosh kicked in action, you'd better practice early withdrawal.

indeed, concur. peace treaties work when there is parity, in Syria's case that was 5 yrs ago (later fundies (ISIS took over the moderate's as opposer's of Assad, then they were no longer of value to the West/US...........by 3 yrs ago even the Fundies (mods beging replaced by) lost the strength to negotiate!

[gaffo]

btw: Winning war is a quaint, un-PC anachronism. You should look at reality and not theory.

The reality is, if the objective was to win war, the US could crush any country on the face of the earth, lickety-split.

The reality, as you pointed out, is that if the US had had as its objective to actually win a war, such as the one in Syria or the one in Vietnam, it could have done so easily.

This indicates that winning was not the US objective.

sadly in the real world US in not the maker and shaper of all things.

"we" wanted to win Nam and could not. thus the fact is America is not the maker of all things and even if we wish for a win, we sometimes lose.

3/4 of the world is populated with non-americans, with a will and history outside of our interests.

remove your hubris and become humble Sir.

[gaffo]

The reality, as you pointed out, is that if the US had had as its objective to actually win a war, such as the one in Syria or the one in Vietnam, it could have done so easily.

This indicates that winning was not the US objective.

Sadly, for the USA, they destroyed Syria,

Bullshit, ISIS destroyed Syria - beyond the destruction that Assad and his dad has done since the 1970's

US has nothing to do with the state of Syria (well the do via Iraqnam - but the actors on the field post our folly of Iaqnam are loser French/German/etc.....Arabs moving to Syria to promote their ISIS crap.

Afghanistan

Afghanistan has been fucked since 79 with the Soviet invasion.

anything after has nothing to do with America's actions and is fully via Taliban and its supporting actors.

and Iraq,

yes US owns this one - iraqnam was fully illegal invasion and occupation of.............and now a puppet state of Iraq.

which means they lost those wars.

"they"? who is they, not me or you - American/Canadian - no "they" are all too many locals living there.

But losing those wars means the USA actually won... which means they lost.

what did i win?

Which means they won.

tell that to the majority nonfudies living there Bubba, I'm sure they'd have a laugh - bet trying to survive all the fudies calling for thier heads.

Which means they lost, which means they won, and the buck stops here, coz I'm tired of typing this same sentence over and over again.

???????????? we and they lost - since the majority of us and them are not fundies.................but unlike "Them" we don;t have to live over there and so can ignore and play ostiche - as we did in 75 after the fall of South Veitnam.

[gaffo]

"While Obama came to office pledging to end George W Bush’s wars, he leaves the position as having been at war longer than any president in U.S. history."

Actually, the USA has not been at war with any nations or factions since WWII.

To be at war, according the Vienna or Warsaw or whatever, maybe UN convention, which the USA has pledged to follow, first you have to declare war before you can attack.

But the USA has not declared war on any enemy since WWII.

Which makes USA soldiers each personally responsible to a potential trial as crime against humanity and extreme terrorism.

That will never happen, of course, because the USA has a lot of clout with its international allies and its own military readiness. Which national superpower is strong enough to court-marshal 5000000 US troops? Azerbaidjahn? Nepal? Bhutan? Or Nincompoopgonad?

refer to 1970's War Power Act.

but affirm your conviction to and for the Rule of Law - which you and I affirm.

[Walker]

btw: Winning war is a quaint, un-PC anachronism. You should look at reality and not theory.

The reality is, if the objective was to win war, the US could crush any country on the face of the earth, lickety-split.

The reality, as you pointed out, is that if the US had had as its objective to actually win a war, such as the one in Syria or the one in Vietnam, it could have done so easily.

This indicates that winning was not the US objective.

sadly in the real world US in not the maker and shaper of all things.

"we" wanted to win Nam and could not. thus the fact is America is not the maker of all things and even if we wish for a win, we sometimes lose.

3/4 of the world is populated with non-americans, with a will and history outside of our interests.

remove your hubris and become humble Sir.

No, the US wanted to withdraw from Vietnam. Remember?

If the purpose was to win it would be by any means necessary, which includes scorched earth.

The purpose of war is the perpetuation of the military-industrial complex.

This is why Nobel Peace Prize B.O. bombed 7 countries.

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
- Ike 1961
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century ... wer001.asp


This is why the generals are up in arms, so to speak, about Trump's Syria policy.
This is why Trump did not sacrifice $ billions after Saudi Arabia murdered a Saudi Arabian in Turkey.

[Walker]

but affirm your conviction to and for the Rule of Law - which you and I affirm.

What does the Rule of Law contingent think about this?

“The latest fad in criminal-justice activism is the concept of “survival crime.”

“The theory holds that the homeless, the poor, and people of color commit property crimes and low-level infractions in order to secure their basic survival. Any enforcement of these laws is thus a violation of their basic human rights and should be relaxed—that is, local governments should stop enforcing any laws that “criminalize homelessness” and ‘criminalize poverty.’”

https://www.city-journal.org/survival-crimes

[gaffo]

The reality, as you pointed out, is that if the US had had as its objective to actually win a war, such as the one in Syria or the one in Vietnam, it could have done so easily.

This indicates that winning was not the US objective.

sadly in the real world US in not the maker and shaper of all things.

"we" wanted to win Nam and could not. thus the fact is America is not the maker of all things and even if we wish for a win, we sometimes lose.

3/4 of the world is populated with non-americans, with a will and history outside of our interests.

remove your hubris and become humble Sir.

No, the US wanted to withdraw from Vietnam. Remember?

I rem, that the US refused to leave and was forced to 5 yrs after the general pop mandated it!

you rem different apparently.

If the purpose was to win it would be by any means necessary, which includes scorched earth.

of course. we can "Win" any war - even could have Nam - but the political/natural cost of waying waste to South Veitnam to "win" was too high of a cost (i.e "Winning" whatever that would have gained, would not offset the "lose" - political/natural/etc..............and so we pulled out and left the fate of the SV to themselves (I felt for the SV - and no believer in the nobility of the NV - just a realist, too many SV in positions of power were corrupt (I wish it were not so - but it was - i wish the "joe ave SV folks could make those in power reform - but they could not sadly).

All wars - from any nation (USSR had their Nam too - so the rule applies to all nations) have a "balence of benefit" - if the cost of winning excess the benefit of winning all nations cut their loses and LEAVE.................and leave the fate of this living in said land to the local powers that be.

[Walker]

No, the US wanted to withdraw from Vietnam. Remember?

I rem, that the US refused to leave and was forced to 5 yrs after the general pop mandated it!

you rem different apparently.

The gen pop is the US, we the people.

I remember a large and influential anti-war movement.

*

There are many things that the US doesn't want, but the politicians push.

They are the ruling class, and know better than us peons.

For instance, whatever the hell "climate change" is supposed to represent, it consistently scores low in polls of public interest, although with all the Green hysteria going on in the news these days, especially since the weather is about the only platform the Dems can push after the success of the Trump administration (despite unprecedented opposition), younger folks may think it's important (the weather).

Basically, just say the word "green" in a polling question and you'll get an affirmative, which will be translated by activists into "climate change" being in the forefront of public consciousness.

This cring clip is either or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IITaN7SJGpw