Libs of a feather...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Libs of a feather...

Like the rest of you aren't enjoying your happy little echo chamber in here.

Typical reply, since you can't take issue with the post, lump the libs together and call it a day.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Am I reading a different thread? In post 3 mike stated an  opinion about how he thinks wars should be resolved, not how they have been resolved historically. In post 7, he did not say all wars end in treaties, he asked how it worked out when they didn't. In post 9, Kane showed us that all officially declared wars ended in treaties, and there were numerous armed conflicts, most of which did not end in treaties or even agreed upon terms. And the aftermath of many of those wasn't good, for us or the people from whom we withdrew support.

I will give mike this, he can get y'all derailed faster than a Trump tweet.

Back on topic, do we as a nation owe protection to allies when we withdraw from a conflict?

Thank you.  
It's like they see me disagreeing with them about one thing and then they atribute all these things that I never said to me.  I can't know for sure but they may have heard some Goldstein figure saying those things on Fox News or Limbaugh. It wasn't me.

In this case I think it was just a case of poor reading comprehension, and their eagerness to pounce on anything you post.

That, plus pirkster needed another reason to down vote your reputation.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Back on topic, do we as a nation owe protection to allies when we withdraw from a conflict?

Sounds like a formula for endless war.

---

Back on topic, do we as a nation owe protection to allies when we withdraw from a conflict?

Sounds like a formula for endless war.

Exactly right. Why is the US the UNs enforcer? I dont think any of the recent wars have advanced our interests.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

Which allies shall we protect, rj? The Kurds are not listed as part of either US-led coalition.

In 2016, USA Today listed the various nations and groups fighting in Syria:

Pro-Syrian government

Forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad are backed by two nations, Russia and Iran, and many Shiite militias from across the region who are organized by Iran. The combatants include:

Syrian government troops

Iran

Afghan Shiite militia

Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia

Iraqi Shiite militia

Russia. Russian airstrikes target the Islamic State and what Russia says are other “terrorist” groups. But the U.S. military says most Russian airstrikes are aimed at opposition groups threatening Assad's forces.

Anti-Syrian government

Many rebel forces fighting to overthrow the Syrian government are backed by arms, funds and airstrikes by a U.S.-led coalition. The CIA vetted Syrian rebel groups and helped train them in Jordan to use advanced anti-tank weapons against Assad's forces. Saudi Arabia and Qatar supplied the weaponry and funds. These rebels are being supported by:

Jordan

Saudi Arabia

Turkey

Qatar

United Arab Emirates

United States

Israel, on Syria's southern border, provides some assistance to rebel forces fighting the Syrian government and has also launched airstrikes against Syrian and Hezbollah targets to prevent the transfer of "game changing" technology and weapons to Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.

Anti-Islamic State

The U.S.-led coalition conducting airstrikes against Islamic State forces in Syria and Iraq includes:

Australia

Bahrain

Canada

France

Jordan

Saudi Arabia

Turkey

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom.

Russia is not part of the U.S.-led coalition, though it has also hit Islamic State positions.

Other fighters

Kurdish militia from Turkey, Iraq and Syria are fighting the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS. But the Kurds are sometimes aligned with the Syrian government and seen as a threat by Turkey, which has fought for years against a Kurdish separatist movement threatening its territorial sovereignty. Syrian Kurds are backed by Russia, the United States and Iraqi Kurdish groups.

The Islamic State, a vicious al-Qaeda spinoff, and Jabhat al Nusrah, al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria that works with many Sunni Arab opposition groups in Syria, have attracted foreign fighters from across the Arab world and Europe. Both have expanded during the chaos in Syria.

---

Re-read post 3, 7 and 9 and get back to me.

Am I reading a different thread? In post 3 mike stated an  opinion about how he thinks wars should be resolved, not how they have been resolved historically. In post 7, he did not say all wars end in treaties, he asked how it worked out when they didn't. In post 9, Kane showed us that all officially declared wars ended in treaties, and there were numerous armed conflicts, most of which did not end in treaties or even agreed upon terms. And the aftermath of many of those wasn't good, for us or the people from whom we withdrew support.

I will give mike this, he can get y'all derailed faster than a Trump tweet.

Back on topic, do we as a nation owe protection to allies when we withdraw from a conflict?

Post 3 Mike stated "military involved in a conflict".  Not a declaration of war.

Post 7 Mike changed the parameters to an implied declaration of war.

Post 9 Kane provided information on all conflicts.

Post 13 Mike changed the parameters .

Post 14 I asked if Mike ever admitted to being incorrect.  Perhaps I could have been more specific and inquired why does he change the conversation every time he is proven misguided instead of just saying "I stand corrected"

To your point of Mike, yes he is adept at derailing a conversation.

As for your question, I think it goes deeper than that.  IMO we get involved in too much that is not our concern.  We need to get our own house in order before we look outside.  If we as a nation get involved we need to get involved 100% with a mind set to win and break the will of the opposition at all cost.  No restrictions, no congressional intervention.  Put the military masterminds in charge and get out of the way.  When the outcome is decided terms can be discussed.  We use our military far too often and we handcuff them from doing what they are trained to do.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Am I reading a different thread? In post 3 mike stated an  opinion about how he thinks wars should be resolved, not how they have been resolved historically. In post 7, he did not say all wars end in treaties, he asked how it worked out when they didn't. In post 9, Kane showed us that all officially declared wars ended in treaties, and there were numerous armed conflicts, most of which did not end in treaties or even agreed upon terms. And the aftermath of many of those wasn't good, for us or the people from whom we withdrew support.

I will give mike this, he can get y'all derailed faster than a Trump tweet.

Back on topic, do we as a nation owe protection to allies when we withdraw from a conflict?

Post 3 Mike stated "military involved in a conflict".  Not a declaration of war.

Post 7 Mike changed the parameters to an implied declaration of war.

Post 9 Kane provided information on all conflicts.

Post 13 Mike changed the parameters .

Post 14 I asked if Mike ever admitted to being incorrect.  Perhaps I could have been more specific and inquired why does he change the conversation every time he is proven misguided instead of just saying "I stand corrected"

To your point of Mike, yes he is adept at derailing a conversation.

As for your question, I think it goes deeper than that.  IMO we get involved in too much that is not our concern.  We need to get our own house in order before we look outside.  If we as a nation get involved we need to get involved 100% with a mind set to win and break the will of the opposition at all cost.  No restrictions, no congressional intervention.  Put the military masterminds in charge and get out of the way.  When the outcome is decided terms can be discussed.  We use our military far too often and we handcuff them from doing what they are trained to do.

I didn't mean to imply that the conversation should be limited to wars that were declared by the US Congress.  Sorry. I thought it was clear in the context, since Congress hasn't declared war since 1941 and no one had brought up any event from that far back.

I'm talking about treaties. We settled Vietnam, both Iraq wars, wars in the Balkans, and many others with treaties even though Congress did not declare war in any of those cases.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Trump told his Generals back in April that he did not accept their idea of a permanent presence in Syria. They gave him the old claptrap about ISIS coming back if we leave. Trump gave them more time to eliminate ISIS but told them, "Don't come back in October and tell me the job isn't finished". All the reports of Trump's military leaders being surprised by the recent withdrawal order are false. They have known for many months that Trump intended to leave Syria. Trump intends to clean up all the foreign policy failures previous administrations have created.

---

Am I reading a different thread? In post 3 mike stated an  opinion about how he thinks wars should be resolved, not how they have been resolved historically. In post 7, he did not say all wars end in treaties, he asked how it worked out when they didn't. In post 9, Kane showed us that all officially declared wars ended in treaties, and there were numerous armed conflicts, most of which did not end in treaties or even agreed upon terms. And the aftermath of many of those wasn't good, for us or the people from whom we withdrew support.

I will give mike this, he can get y'all derailed faster than a Trump tweet.

Back on topic, do we as a nation owe protection to allies when we withdraw from a conflict?

Post 3 Mike stated "military involved in a conflict".  Not a declaration of war.

Post 7 Mike changed the parameters to an implied declaration of war.

Post 9 Kane provided information on all conflicts.

Post 13 Mike changed the parameters .

Post 14 I asked if Mike ever admitted to being incorrect.  Perhaps I could have been more specific and inquired why does he change the conversation every time he is proven misguided instead of just saying "I stand corrected"

To your point of Mike, yes he is adept at derailing a conversation.

As for your question, I think it goes deeper than that.  IMO we get involved in too much that is not our concern.  We need to get our own house in order before we look outside.  If we as a nation get involved we need to get involved 100% with a mind set to win and break the will of the opposition at all cost.  No restrictions, no congressional intervention.  Put the military masterminds in charge and get out of the way.  When the outcome is decided terms can be discussed.  We use our military far too often and we handcuff them from doing what they are trained to do.

It only appears the US is handcuffed because the military is actually limited in actions and funding without a Congressional War declaration. Fighting conflicts under the Anti-terrorism umbrella has limitations, unless a direct threat is imminent or taking place. It’s balls to the walls at that point. Ask those Russian mercenaries how things play out in the previous mentioned scenario.

---

Post 3 Mike stated "military involved in a conflict".  Not a declaration of war.

Post 7 Mike changed the parameters to an implied declaration of war.

Post 9 Kane provided information on all conflicts.

Post 13 Mike changed the parameters .

Post 14 I asked if Mike ever admitted to being incorrect.  Perhaps I could have been more specific and inquired why does he change the conversation every time he is proven misguided instead of just saying "I stand corrected"

To your point of Mike, yes he is adept at derailing a conversation.

As for your question, I think it goes deeper than that.  IMO we get involved in too much that is not our concern.  We need to get our own house in order before we look outside.  If we as a nation get involved we need to get involved 100% with a mind set to win and break the will of the opposition at all cost.  No restrictions, no congressional intervention.  Put the military masterminds in charge and get out of the way.  When the outcome is decided terms can be discussed.  We use our military far too often and we handcuff them from doing what they are trained to do.

It only appears the US is handcuffed because the military is actually limited in actions and funding without a Congressional War declaration. Fighting conflicts under the Anti-terrorism umbrella has limitations, unless a direct threat is imminent or taking place. It’s balls to the walls at that point. Ask those Russian mercenaries how things play out in the previous mentioned scenario.

A lot of the problem has to do with identifying who is a threat.  
Russian mercs rushing across a desert in Russian vehicles towards a US staffed base is pretty unambiguous.  No mercy, blow it all up.
Figuring out which of the Afghan security forces is about to turn on their trainers is very ambiguous.  Tread carefully.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It only appears the US is handcuffed because the military is actually limited in actions and funding without a Congressional War declaration. Fighting conflicts under the Anti-terrorism umbrella has limitations, unless a direct threat is imminent or taking place. It’s balls to the walls at that point. Ask those Russian mercenaries how things play out in the previous mentioned scenario.

A lot of the problem has to do with identifying who is a threat.  
Russian mercs rushing across a desert in Russian vehicles towards a US staffed base is pretty unambiguous.  No mercy, blow it all up.
Figuring out which of the Afghan security forces is about to turn on their trainers is very ambiguous.  Tread carefully.

Agree but we are also aware of how “dirty” that situation is. We’ve all but removed ourselves from direct contact with recruits. The career guys are actually pretty awesome. In any case, my opinion, we need to leave all of it behind. The Taliban has been and will always be an issue. It is one issue their government needs to control directly. The area is too tribal and corruption speaks loudly over there.  Time to bring everyone back and keep the tens of billions sent over annually.

---

Am I reading a different thread? In post 3 mike stated an  opinion about how he thinks wars should be resolved, not how they have been resolved historically. In post 7, he did not say all wars end in treaties, he asked how it worked out when they didn't. In post 9, Kane showed us that all officially declared wars ended in treaties, and there were numerous armed conflicts, most of which did not end in treaties or even agreed upon terms. And the aftermath of many of those wasn't good, for us or the people from whom we withdrew support.

I will give mike this, he can get y'all derailed faster than a Trump tweet.

Back on topic, do we as a nation owe protection to allies when we withdraw from a conflict?

Post 3 Mike stated "military involved in a conflict".  Not a declaration of war.

Post 7 Mike changed the parameters to an implied declaration of war.

Post 9 Kane provided information on all conflicts.

Post 13 Mike changed the parameters .

Post 14 I asked if Mike ever admitted to being incorrect.  Perhaps I could have been more specific and inquired why does he change the conversation every time he is proven misguided instead of just saying "I stand corrected"

To your point of Mike, yes he is adept at derailing a conversation.

As for your question, I think it goes deeper than that.  IMO we get involved in too much that is not our concern.  We need to get our own house in order before we look outside.  If we as a nation get involved we need to get involved 100% with a mind set to win and break the will of the opposition at all cost.  No restrictions, no congressional intervention.  Put the military masterminds in charge and get out of the way.  When the outcome is decided terms can be discussed.  We use our military far too often and we handcuff them from doing what they are trained to do.

I think you're splitting hairs in  an attempt to nail him, but whatever. 

Nobody wins or loses debates here, and minds are seldom, if ever, changed. Regarding the text in bold font, if you hold everyone who participates in this forum to this same standard, you'll go crazy.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Sounds like a formula for endless war.

Exactly right. Why is the US the UNs enforcer? I dont think any of the recent wars have advanced our interests.

The initial reasons, or our continued presence?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Post 3 Mike stated "military involved in a conflict".  Not a declaration of war.

Post 7 Mike changed the parameters to an implied declaration of war.

Post 9 Kane provided information on all conflicts.

Post 13 Mike changed the parameters .

Post 14 I asked if Mike ever admitted to being incorrect.  Perhaps I could have been more specific and inquired why does he change the conversation every time he is proven misguided instead of just saying "I stand corrected"

To your point of Mike, yes he is adept at derailing a conversation.

As for your question, I think it goes deeper than that.  IMO we get involved in too much that is not our concern.  We need to get our own house in order before we look outside.  If we as a nation get involved we need to get involved 100% with a mind set to win and break the will of the opposition at all cost.  No restrictions, no congressional intervention.  Put the military masterminds in charge and get out of the way.  When the outcome is decided terms can be discussed.  We use our military far too often and we handcuff them from doing what they are trained to do.

I think you're splitting hairs in  an attempt to nail him, but whatever. 

Nobody wins or loses debates here, and minds are seldom, if ever, changed. Regarding the text in bold font, if you hold everyone who participates in this forum to this same standard, you'll go crazy.

LOL  You are probably right but I am on record numerous times admitting I was wrong.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Exactly right. Why is the US the UNs enforcer? I dont think any of the recent wars have advanced our interests.

The initial reasons, or our continued presence?

Mostly continued presence, although it was never in our interest to go into Libya.

Rather than do the regime change and rebuild forever route, we should just carpet bomb the enemy and leave. The military expression is "rubble can't cause trouble."

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Now Trump is slow-playing the Syrian withdrawal.  Not sure if he is listening to the Neocons or just trying to pacify them.

If you listen to what Trump says you will end up confused.  If you pay attention to what he actually does, things are much clearer.

Meanwhile, the NY Times opinion page says it's time to leave Afghanistan:

No other country in the world symbolizes the decline of the American empire as much as Afghanistan. There is virtually no possibility of a military victory over the Taliban and little chance of leaving behind a self-sustaining democracy — facts that Washington’s policy community has mostly been unable to accept.

While many American troops stay behind steel-reinforced concrete walls to protect themselves from the very population they are supposed to help, it is striking how little discussion Afghanistan has generated in government and media circles in Washington. When it comes to Afghanistan, Washington has been a city hiding behind its own walls of shame and frustration.

---

Now Trump is slow-playing the Syrian withdrawal.  Not sure if he is listening to the Neocons or just trying to pacify them.

If you listen to what Trump says you will end up confused.  If you pay attention to what he actually does, things are much clearer.

Meanwhile, the NY Times opinion page says it's time to leave Afghanistan:

No other country in the world symbolizes the decline of the American empire as much as Afghanistan. There is virtually no possibility of a military victory over the Taliban and little chance of leaving behind a self-sustaining democracy — facts that Washington’s policy community has mostly been unable to accept.

While many American troops stay behind steel-reinforced concrete walls to protect themselves from the very population they are supposed to help, it is striking how little discussion Afghanistan has generated in government and media circles in Washington. When it comes to Afghanistan, Washington has been a city hiding behind its own walls of shame and frustration.

While I can agree that we need to slim the Afghanistan presence, I vehemently disagree with their fluff. We have never been at war in that country and never will be. We arrived there to slow down the drug trade and terrorism that grew from certain known camps. Since, we have been attempting to train their forces and show them how to run a legitimate government so that they can take on responsibility. They have grown tremendously! I assure you we do not hide behind walls. We regularly show face in their cities. We shop among their people and spend money in their establishments. In fact, there is a very well known club that people like to frequent. Much like the U.S., there are pockets of garbage that will always be garbage. Striking how little the bashing media circles know or understand about that country.

---

The Taliban eradicated 90% of the the opium crop in 2000. Then we got there, the CIA took over the worldwide opium trade and now there's a flood of cheap heroin destroying lives worldwide and especially in America.

---

The Taliban eradicated 90% of the the opium crop in 2000.  Then we got there, the CIA took over the worldwide opium trade and now there's a flood of cheap heroin destroying lives worldwide and especially in America.

So many reasons this is just a “pipe” dream! And America’s main issues are with opioids, not opiates.

---