|
ThePutty posted:gently caress, I didn't think of that. Honestly though, you'd think your average fighter would think logically about keeping the weapon or not. Anybody can understand the potential dangers of firearms being spread out everywhere. Counterpoint: Clearly nobody else is going to give up theirs, so I need to keep mine to protect myself from anyone who gets any crazy ideas. People get kinda stupid about guns.
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:We've got people seriously claiming Libya is going to be worse off under a government that isn't run by a lunatic tyrant who stole more than $200 billion from them over the years. We are far beyond Poe's Law and any corollaries so at this point I am taking no chances. Well, considering how the last two times we deposed a set of lunatic tyrants we did accomplish somehow making the deposed nations worse off, it's really just hoping we reverse the trend at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Slobodan Milošević Right, silly me. The last -three- times.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Because Libya is exactly the same as these two examples, right. Just sayin', boss, we've accomplished the impossible twice before. Third time's the charm, right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
Squalid posted:What the hell is a tankie Stalin groupie, generally. No, I don't get the etymology either
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:People who disagree with you aren't actually al Qaeda supporters, Sinteres. That's in your head. You, however, have made it clear you explicitly are an Al Queda supporter, on the grounds that you think we should be supporting Al Queda by putting boots on the ground to support their efforts in Syria. Have you noticed, Volkerball, that you are currently 0 for 4 on Interventions That Totally Won't Backfire On The US? Why are you so intent on making it 0 for 5?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:On a scale of 1 to Clancy how possible is it for us to let Saudi Arabia go? I know they're subsidizing half of our murder-death-kill armaments industry, but otherwise, could we manage to ditch them in any kind of timely manner? Solid Early Tom Clancy: fanciful, but not insane. Requires the US continue to normalize relations with Iran, trading an utterly loathsome theocratic monarchy for a just mostly loathsome theocracy as an ally in the region.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Good point. Maybe war would be bad. I stand corrected. I have switched to the only other possible stance, which is not war. Thanks for the insight. start the clock until the next time volkerball calls for american boots on the ground
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Prove anything I've said in that post or this forum is a lie. You do know your custom title still exists right
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:They didn't magically pop into existence after the US invasion either. The ideology existed long before that, from at least the time of the grand mosque seizure in 1979, and continued to grow up to and through 9/11. And Saddam and Assad both encouraged its growth in their respective countries as a political tool before, during, and after the war. conspicuously missing from this story is the part where the US told the Iraqi Army "look cease to exist, thanks" immediately followed by handing out weapons to all the good little ethnic-majority boys and twiddling our thumbs while they got their ethnic cleanse on. the ideology existed before, sure. then we came in and demonstrated conclusively that their assertions about secular rule were 100% accurate: the Beacon of Liberty And Justice In The World was just as happy to buy loyalty with Sunni corpses as any Shiite. As a bonus once they were getting to be trouble, we made it official policy to hand them all the weaponry they could ask for in the name of making sure Petraeus' convoys didn't have to worry about being attacked by them. Sure, we didn't start the fire, but we were the ones who decided to toss the embers into Dry Kindling Storage, got rid of all the fire extinguishers, and then proceeded to try to put the resulting blaze out with gasoline.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The US invasion so thoroughly destroyed the concept of secular democratic rule that the largest grassroots movement in favor of liberal reform in the history of the Arab world happened before the last ground troops had even left Iraq. Seems legit. The reality is that it was sectarian rule in Iraq from the other side. It wasn't meaningfully different. The victimization and the oppression were the same even if the victims and the oppressed were different. That was my argument, and it was yours in the first paragraph, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Before the US showed up, it was not an unreasonable position for Iraqi Sunnis to believe that a secular democracy could produce a more equitable society than the Baathist regime. Ten years of US-backed Shia death squads later, as far as the surviving Sunni on the ground was concerned, we'd gone to great expense to prove everything ISIS said about Sunni safety- "the only form of government that will not kill you to curry favor with Shia is a Sunni theocracy-" was 100% true. The victimization and the oppression were not the same. Under the US, it was actively worse.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:That's not true at all. They went from one sectarian dictatorship to another. quote:This: "the only form of government that will not kill you to curry favor with Shia is a Sunni theocracy-" is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Very transparently so. That's not why ISIS gained influence. quote:You want this to be true so bad don't you. Far as I'm concerned it's a simple observation of fact. For all of Saddam's cruelty, he was a step up from eternal civil war with a side of ISIS, complete with the new and exciting fear that at any moment a typo on a report thousands of miles away will have your house reduced to a crater by the US. You, on the other hand, need creating and arming ISIS, all in the the name of replacing an oppressive sectarian Sunni dictatorship with a less secure oppressive sectarian Shia dictatorship, to have been a net improvement on the state of the world. Because the alternative is admitting the US' track record of abject failure at the regime change you are so desperately cheering for more of.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Uhhuh... Yeah, President Trump, famousd for his respect towards fellow NATO allies and susceptibility to diplomatic pressure, will definately not react violently just so long as Hollande and Merkel tell him so. The man went from banging the drums for war with North Korea to "never mind, who gives a poo poo" over the course of one meeting with Xi, and ousted his most favored advisor on grounds that the New York Times made fun of him. There are people incapable of short-term memory retention less susceptible to diplomatic pressure than Donald Trump.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
CIA analysts are alright, mostly because they've got access to every piece of sigint on the face of the planet. it's when it comes to acting on that analysis that they become hopelessly loving incompetent, mostly because no, honestly, this time arming terrorists and assassinating anyone insufficiently right wing is going to work out
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Freezer posted:Do we have any idea of who's pursuing who, or which are the factions involved? were you a big deal under the previous crown prince? if so, miiiight be a good time to be somewhere else the new crown prince is cleaning house
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 23:29
|
|