|
TheTatteredKing posted:Or the apocalyptic imagery feeds and the imprecise attacks feed their narrative of a cataclysmic battle between Muslims and the other, driving recruitment up. How'd that work out for our enemies the last time America pursued an impactful strategic bombing campaign? Conservatives draft policy by learning whats worked in the past and scaling up its capacity, while liberals draft policy based upon their perceptions of the potential future.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Edit: wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Montasque posted:I popped by Freep, Cruz supporters, or as they are now known as CRUZBOTS are poo poo posting at a frightening pace, while Trumpkins are poo poo posting right back at them. Who did freep support in the 2008 primaries?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:How'd that work out for our enemies the last time America pursued an impactful strategic bombing campaign? They took over Hanoi?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:Inanimate Carbon Rod 2016 All me all rod
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Trumpkin sounds like an enemy in a presidential themed MMORPG
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:How'd that work out for our enemies the last time America pursued an impactful strategic bombing campaign? America has never had an "impactful" strategic bombing campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Who did freep support in the 2008 primaries? I do believe it was Fred Thompson before McCain took control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
rscott posted:They took over Hanoi? How'd it work out the last time we pursued a strategic bombing campaign without being too afraid to use the right tools for the job? TheTatteredKing posted:America has never had an "impactful" strategic bombing campaign. Tell that to the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
etalian posted:Remember the old saying, "90% of life is just showing up" Or the bare minimum of being a Senator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
etalian posted:Remember the old saying, "90% of life is just showing up" His campaign is complete amateur hour. The whole idea of running a national campaign and not doing stops in NH and IA in favor of Fox News appearances is so misguided. Any competent professional should be able to see that Trump has totally removed that as a viable strategy this time around
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:How'd it work out the last time we pursued a strategic bombing campaign without being too afraid to use the right tools for the job? The Soviets beat the Axis, hth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Tell that to the Japanese. The fire bombing campaign isn't what turned the war. Even the nukes didn't end the war, it was in conjunction of the Soviets moving in on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:The Soviets beat the Axis, hth. Beat 'em riding Ford and Chevy trucks, GalacticAcid. How many locomotives and mile of rail did the Soviets manufacture during the war, GalacticAcid? Amateurs study tactics. Experts understand that America won the war because we mechanized the Allied armies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:The fire bombing campaign isn't what turned the war. Even the nukes didn't end the war, it was in conjunction of the Soviets moving in on them. I've never heard that before
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:The fire bombing campaign isn't what turned the war. Even the nukes didn't end the war, it was in conjunction of the Soviets moving in on them. 'America didn't win WW2' is a position quite far outside the political mainstream and has no place in either the Democratic or Republican primaries, FYI
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:One consequence of Trump pushing the birther angle against Cruz is that it kind of poisons Cruz for his supporters and makes it likely that a lot smaller percentage will support Cruz later if Trump should falter since they'll see him as a dirty foreigner. I don't see how that's cosmic justice, Trump and Cruz dropping out of the race in that order is pretty much the dream scenario of the 'respectable people'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
MIGF is correct though that the US doesn't really win wars unless it commits to Total War. See Sherman, William Tecumseh or the destruction of 97% of Iraq's electicity capacity in Desert Storm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:'America didn't win WW2' is a position quite far outside the political mainstream and has no place in either the Democratic or Republican primaries, FYI You're right, its place is firmly in history
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:"Hey guys, why aren't we able to firebomb ISIL? Has the AF forgotten how effective attacks on enemy populations centers are at reducing a hostile military's capacity to sustain combat operations by depriving them of the manpower and logistics necessary for force replenishment?" What is it with you and constantly validating ISIL's claim to being a legitimate state and the representative of the people which it holds in bondage in ISIL-occupied cities? This is exactly what Obama was talking about in the State of the Union where Republicans love to hype up ISIL and legitimize them, to the point of being an existential threat for America instead of a strategic-level nuisance that at best can pull off the odd half-cocked terrorist attack on America. All this apocalyptic clash-of-civilizations imagery just promotes their worldview and makes their recruitment easier. Your proposals aren't like carpet-bombing German cities to inflict the sense of loss on Germans - it'd be more like carpet bombing Nazi-occupied France to force Nazis out and discourage collaborators, the French wouldn't appreciate that sort of "liberation" all that much. This "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" poo poo has never worked, and the solution is not "we just weren't willing to destroy it hard enough" unless your only real goal is destruction. I mean, it fits with Ted Cruz and other right wing shitheels of the world for whom ISIL only matters as the new Great Enemy to be used to justify any policy like the 2nd amendment or increased military spending, where the vast majority of human suffering ISIL inflicts on conquered peoples is treated as irrelevant. This is why as much as this thread is for laughing at the GOP nomination process, it's still deadly serious that none of them actually be allowed to win - that stupid "Let's see if sand can glow in the dark!" poo poo is all for the cameras and a bigoted base of Americans who just want to feel strong and see enemies destroyed before them with no concern for trying to achieve any good with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:'America didn't win WW2' is a position quite far outside the political mainstream and has no place in either the Democratic or Republican primaries, FYI Conservatives draft policy based off historical revisionism to match their gut feelings while liberals blah blah blah
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Do... Do you think isis is a country, MIGF?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ this is not a particularly controversial opinion in academia but the mainstream wwii consensus is "are brave boys, normandy," etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I do believe it was Fred Thompson before McCain took control. Thanks - I actually meant 2012 but
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:he inherited 100,000,000 dollars his dad died in like 1999. The same year he said he wanted to abort everyone. Coincidence? I think not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Is this some weird right-wing conspiracy theory I haven't heard about yet? The people in ISIS occupied territory are a voluntary polity and the best way to defeat them would be to bomb " ISIS infrastructure" so that ISIS would raise "ISIS taxes" causing unrest? There are many facets to that theory, each more crazy than the last, but the kicker for me seems to be that your stated end goal is to spur ISIS to extort and loot more people
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Thanks - I actually meant 2012 but In 2012 Newt was the hero and champion of the Free Republic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I've never heard that before A well supported theory is that Japan surrendered to the US less because of the bombs and more because the Soviets were massing for a ground invasion. The Japanese were aware of Soviet atrocities in Germany and decided to go with surrender to the Americans over Soviet ground invasion. The story also goes that relations between the US and the Soviets had already soured over partitioning Germany and the US didn't want to deal with another divided nation, so the bombs were dropped in an attempt to shock and awe Japan into surrender rather than for any real military goal. So it could be argued that dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations spared Japan from Soviet rule, ultimately causing far less damage to the country in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
quadrophrenic posted:Is this some weird right-wing conspiracy theory I haven't heard about yet? The people in ISIS occupied territory are a voluntary polity and the best way to defeat them would be to bomb " ISIS infrastructure" so that ISIS would raise "ISIS taxes" causing unrest? That means killing more brown people, which is MIGF's goal
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
rscott posted:They took over Hanoi? They took over Saigon. Hanoi was already theirs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:A well supported theory is that Japan surrendered to the US less because of the bombs and more because the Soviets were massing for a ground invasion. The Japanese were aware of Soviet atrocities in Germany and decided to go with surrender to the Americans over Soviet ground invasion. The story also goes that relations between the US and the Soviets had already soured over partitioning Germany and the US didn't want to deal with another divided nation, so the bombs were dropped in an attempt to shock and awe Japan into surrender rather than for any real military goal. Considering the utter destruction of the Kwangtung Army, Japan's last capable ground force in Manchuria, over the timespan of like 2 weeks or whatever, yeah I can see that as being a very big part of it. The Soviets were gonna come in there and straight skull gently caress them if they didn't surrender. This is all pretty far off topic from the Republicans wanting to nuke Raqqa or drive a column of tanks through ISIS territory Smoothrich-style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It would dissuade individuals in the region from joining ISIL, and force ISIL to raise taxes upon their citizens in order to continue their operations. It would drive a wedge between the population and ISIL, while making it felt that ISIL was defeated when they are defeated. In which I somewhat agree with MIGF; The point of massive, overwhelming retaliation rather than a more humanitarian and measured response is to extinguish in the mind of the enemy the hope that resistance can be fruitful. An enemy that seems to bleed when it is poked can be imagined to eventually die of a thousand papercuts if only enough disenfranchised youth join in stabbing him. An enemy that casually obliterates everything you've ever known at the slightest offense cannot. This is not even a question of strategy—the strategic value of overwhelming response is pretty well known. It's a moral issue. Here in the enlightened West, we like to think we are above the mass murder of innocent people who just happen to live within a few miles of a suspected enemy. That is supposed to be what makes us better than our enemies in the modern era—not that we have more money or better weapons, but because we have more morals and better people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:In 2012 Newt was the hero and champion of the Free Republic. In 2012 it was everyone at one point or another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
quadrophrenic posted:Do... Do you think isis is a country, MIGF? I think ISIL claims to be a state, operates various state institutions, and is at war with America. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the American military should take them at their word and treat them like a hostile foreign state and not hold back out of fear over whatever propaganda they may produce. They're going to create propaganda until we destroy their capacity to act like a state, might as well make them known that foreign nations which declare war on the United States are treated the same way as we've always treated them. We didn't avoid killing nazis because of Hitler's quasi-religious beliefs in a final battle for the German peoples, now did we?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Daesh is an apocalyptic cult. Their resistance doesn't need to be fruitful, only righteous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:Daesh is an apocalyptic cult. Their resistance doesn't need to be fruitful, only righteous. Do you believe that people strap on suicide vests with the foreknowledge and assumption that he is going to accomplish nothing in so doing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:Daesh is an apocalyptic cult. Their resistance doesn't need to be fruitful, only righteous. The nazis were an apocalyptic cult, and we developed an effective method for eliminating their ideology. Now, it would appear that the same ideals rebranded to a different ethnicity have emerged in the mideast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
quadrophrenic posted:Dumb question for people who know about constitutional law than me: what would be required to settle the Natural Born Citizen issue? Wouldn't it require a Constitutional amendment? The lawyer in Texas is making it sound like he wants to bring his lawsuit to the Supreme Court to settle the issue once and for all, but is it in the Supreme Court's purview to review vague Constitutional language*, and what exactly could they do to that effect? I was apparently taught wrong, or this has changed; but I distinctly remember being taught during the 80's that to be president, you had to be born on American soil (this included embassies, panama, military bases, etc.) AND both parents had to be citizens of the USA. I remember more than one discussion on this. You could be a US citizen from birth, but to be President you had to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Apparently many other people from my generation were taught the same way, and if that is wrong (as it now seems to be), I wonder where so many teachers back in the day got that idea from. I think alot of the birther stuff comes from that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but I missed the ISIS/ISIL/Daesh distinction, can somebody explain it succinctly? It seemed like the government tried to push ISIL for some reason, but it never seemed to stick in the media. I've only ever seen or heard them referred to as Daesh on here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
quadrophrenic posted:Is this some weird right-wing conspiracy theory I haven't heard about yet? The people in ISIS occupied territory are a voluntary polity and the best way to defeat them would be to bomb " ISIS infrastructure" so that ISIS would raise "ISIS taxes" causing unrest? There are a lot of people to whom 'Muslim' is a race and 'ISIS' is an enemy country. They control more land area than indiana! or whatever it was that Santorum said
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:34
|
|