The First 100 days

[Monahorns]

This is like saying that if Hitler had been killed, we would have been smart to just negotiate a deal with Herman Göring and the other Nazis. The problem with it is that if you don't put down the movement, the next generation will be no better than the previous generation.

Part of the problem is that WW2 didn't take 18 years with no real progress. Why were we able to end the Nazi party but not the Taliban? I am no expert but I have to think part of the problem is either the US hasn't really tried to end the Taliban or the US military is not able to end the Taliban. If the US didn't try, what makes anyone think they will start to try and why are we in Afghanistan if not trying? If the US is unable, then why are we spending blood and money trying to do something we are incapable of doing.

As a pure theoretical I am for ending the Taliban as state sponsors of terrorism, but that theory hasn't worked out well.

 

[Joe Fan]

Deez would have an easier time wrestling a bear.

Eees possible

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why were we able to end the Nazi party but not the Taliban? I am no expert but I have to think part of the problem is either the US hasn't really tried to end the Taliban or the US military is not able to end the Taliban.

We haven't tried - certainly not like we tried in the 1940s, because we had a different mentality. You raised the issue of giving the enemy a recruiting tool and creating a bigger problem if we went after Muslims harder. We had people who thought like that in 1941, but nobody listened to them. After Pearl Harbor, we decided to seek revenge and destroy the threat forever. We weren't going to go soft on Japan just because it was going to mean getting forced into a far bigger conflict. Because of that, we had a few really nasty years of war with Japan and because of that, Germany and Italy, but we destroyed all three threats and completely reordered their societies. None have been a problem since. In fact, all three have been generally reliable allies.

Then with Korea, we decided it would be cool to start half-assing war - slap the bad guys around but don't totally finish them off because doing so would get really ugly. It's like Inigo Montoya choosing to swordfight left-handed. And sure enough, we're still farting around with North Korea, just like we're still farting around with the Taliban. It's a very expensive, ineffective, and dangerous way to fight a war.

If the US didn't try, what makes anyone think they will start to try and why are we in Afghanistan if not trying? If the US is unable, then why are we spending blood and money trying to do something we are incapable of doing.

Two reasons. First, we should change our approach. I want to let Inigo Montoya swordfight right-handed. Finish off the Taliban and end the problem at least in Afghanistan, even if it means killing a lot of people and pissing people off. Is it ok to enable people to hijack planes and crash them into buildings or not? If it's not, then this is the only option. Serious nations don't back down after something like that. Second, we're in a horrible position to negotiate. If you start from the premise that you're leaving and too tired to fight, the Taliban isn't going to give you much of a deal. Basically, we're telling them we're leaving and begging them not to butcher the people who allied with us. That'll go about as well as our withdrawl from Vietnam.

 

[I35]

Nothing wrong with a Hitler analogy when they actually fit. Most people who make them (especially those on the Left) don't know anything about Hitler and the Nazis. I actually do, so I can make the analogies.

Deez, are you living in Germany or use to live in Germany? I’ve always wondered how the modern day Germans feel about that part of their history (Hitler). Being in San Antonio area I’ve got to know many Germans that were raised there but now are Americans. They are very nice people and I’ve talked to them about their culture with them growing up there. But I would never ask them about how they view Hitler because I would never want to offend them. Is it something they just don’t want to talk about, or do they denounce that part of their history? I don’t even know if the modern German generation is taught about him.

 

[Joe Fan]

I think this attitude is one leg of the currently re-forming Republican Party

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, are you living in Germany or use to live in Germany?

I live in Germany. In February 2013, I moved to Wiesbaden (about 30 minutes west of Frankfurt). In October 2014, I moved to the Kaiserslautern area (about an hour and a half southwest of Frankfurt). I live here, because Mrs. Deez was hired by a US DoD agency that provides education services to the children of US troops stationed abroad.

I’ve always wondered how the modern day Germans feel about that part of their history (Hitler). Being in San Antonio area I’ve got to know many Germans that were raised there but now are Americans. They are very nice people and I’ve talked to them about their culture with them growing up there. But I would never ask them about how they view Hitler because I would never want to offend them. Is it something they just don’t want to talk about, or do they denounce that part of their history? I don’t even know if the modern German generation is taught about him.

I would largely defer to what Germans would say. However, these are my impressions after living here for six years, which admittedly isn't a lot. First, German children are taught about Hitler and national socialism (Nazism). They are encouraged (and sometimes required) to visit concentration camps such as Dachau and the Nazi documentation centers (which are basically museums), such as this one in Nuremberg. By the way, if you're ever in Germany, I highly recommend visiting. They are incredible places to visit. The "tone" of these places is strangely objective and matter of fact, though the Nazis are clearly condemned. They aren't very emotional, and that'll give you an impression of what they think.

Second, I'd answer "Yes" to both parts of your other question. They do denounce that part of their history, AND they don't want to talk about it. Though they seem very matter of fact about their past, they do look back on it with a sense of shame, and they aren't very comfortable discussing it. They'd rather leave that part of their history behind.

However, the Nazi past is also a significant political factor (and weapon) as the American past of slavery and Jim Crow are in the United States - maybe even more so. It is used to stomp out anything that might be considered nationalistic or concern for the well-being of Germans, and it is used to reinforce the "citizen of the world" crap. If someone isn't a fan of uncontrolled Islamic immigration, he'll be called or at least analogized with Nazis. If someone condemns Nazism but thinks the German people shouldn't have to self-flagellate, it'll be labeled as "insensitive" and "sympathetic to Nazism." Likewise, the Nazi past is used as a justification to promote national weakness and subservience to the EU and other crooked global institutions as well as radical environmentalism.

Personally, I'm sorta moderate on the issue. I think Germans should be aware of their past and safeguard against repeating it. The Nazis were horrific.

However, I don't think the acts of your average German's great or great-great grandparents should mean that modern day Germans should have to promote policies that hurt the average citizen. I also don't see how guilt over
Nazism should translate into mollycoddling Jew-haters. That makes no sense at all.

I also don't like that communism is given a pass. You'll never see a street named after a Nazi or anything of honor for a Nazi, and you shouldn't. However, Berlin has Soviet war memorials, streets named after and memorials honoring people like Rosa Luxembourg, Ernst Thälmann, and others. Those were horrible people who should not be honored.

 

[Joe Fan]

At least one guy out there gets it

 

[Joe Fan]

Made the front page a couple weeks ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...fa1e98-2336-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html

 

[Joe Fan]

"Trump's Top 10 Achievements for 2019" according to Steve Cortes Trump's Top 10 Achievements for 2019 | RealClearPolitics

The section from this on the courts is posted a couple posts above^

1. Jobs – The stunning recent news on employment proves, more than any other metric, the efficacy of President Trump’s growth doctrine of economic nationalism and the diffusion of power. Defying globalist skeptics from Wall Street, academia, and the corporate media, payrolls surged in America in 2019. The most recent jobs report revealed a plethora of records and extended the wage-growth winning streak to 16 straight months above a 3% pace, a mark seen only three months total during the sluggish Obama years. In addition, the fastest wage gains now flow to those groups that formerly lagged badly in the slow-growth recovery following the Great Recession. For example, the lowest 10% of earners saw income grow at an astounding 7% rate over the last year. Similarly, those without a high school diploma welcomed 9% wage acceleration in 2019.

2. Broadening the Movement – 2019 represented a seminal breakout year for the America First movement as the Republican Party changes to a workers’ party. This new focus translates, already, into significant signs of ethnic, racial, and geographic diversity for the GOP. For example, a recent CNN poll in deeply blue California reported 32% minority support for Trump vs. current Democratic front-runner Joe Biden. Similarly, recent polls by The Hill and Emerson show Latino approval for the president at nearly 40%. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this kind of minority support, both for politics and, more importantly, for the overall cohesion of our society.

3. Confronting China – Though a near-term détente in trade tensions was reached, Trump proved to the world in 2019 that tariffs can be effectively deployed to force the Chinese Communist Party into a bargaining posture. The soaring economy in America demonstrated that tough trade policy can indeed coincide with growth.

6. Remain-in-Mexico Policy – Our country still needs to drastically reform its inane asylum laws and provide vastly more border wall funding, but nonetheless President Trump found a fair and effective near-term solution for border control by requiring asylum seekers to apply from Mexico rather than trespassing across our sovereign border. Not surprisingly, according to NPR, less than 1% of the economic migrants who apply actually qualify as refugees. Trump’s 2019 move, therefore, provides a deterrent and averted a full-scale crisis at our border.

9. Natural Gas Exports Soar – Early in the Trump presidency, America became a net natural gas exporter for the first time since the Eisenhower administration. In 2019, this trend expanded in earnest, with an astonishing 60% growth rate of liquefied natural gas exports for the year. Establishing America as an energy superpower drives domestic prosperity, particularly in heartland energy regions, and facilitates affordable energy to power the on-shoring manufacturing renaissance that has produced 500,000 new factory jobs under Trump. In addition, American energy dominance benefits the geopolitical security of the entire globe.​

 

[Horn6721]

Imagine what could have been done with some support from all the Haters?
Just some support, maybe Media could have been slightly less hateful and partisan?

 

[Joe Fan]

Imagine what could have been done with some support from all the Haters?
Just some support, maybe Media could have been slightly less hateful and partisan?

Post of the year

 

[horninchicago]

Post of the year

Year's flying by.

 

[Joe Fan]

"When stocks finish the first five days higher, the S&P 500 has been positive more than 80% of the time at year-end with an average gain of about 13%"​

'First five days' indicator, which has a good track record at predicting year, off to good start

 

[I35]

I live in Germany. In February 2013, I moved to Wiesbaden (about 30 minutes west of Frankfurt). In October 2014, I moved to the Kaiserslautern area (about an hour and a half southwest of Frankfurt). I live here, because Mrs. Deez was hired by a US DoD agency that provides education services to the children of US troops stationed abroad.



I would largely defer to what Germans would say. However, these are my impressions after living here for six years, which admittedly isn't a lot. First, German children are taught about Hitler and national socialism (Nazism). They are encouraged (and sometimes required) to visit concentration camps such as Dachau and the Nazi documentation centers (which are basically museums), such as this one in Nuremberg. By the way, if you're ever in Germany, I highly recommend visiting. They are incredible places to visit. The "tone" of these places is strangely objective and matter of fact, though the Nazis are clearly condemned. They aren't very emotional, and that'll give you an impression of what they think.

Second, I'd answer "Yes" to both parts of your other question. They do denounce that part of their history, AND they don't want to talk about it. Though they seem very matter of fact about their past, they do look back on it with a sense of shame, and they aren't very comfortable discussing it. They'd rather leave that part of their history behind.

However, the Nazi past is also a significant political factor (and weapon) as the American past of slavery and Jim Crow are in the United States - maybe even more so. It is used to stomp out anything that might be considered nationalistic or concern for the well-being of Germans, and it is used to reinforce the "citizen of the world" crap. If someone isn't a fan of uncontrolled Islamic immigration, he'll be called or at least analogized with Nazis. If someone condemns Nazism but thinks the German people shouldn't have to self-flagellate, it'll be labeled as "insensitive" and "sympathetic to Nazism." Likewise, the Nazi past is used as a justification to promote national weakness and subservience to the EU and other crooked global institutions as well as radical environmentalism.

Personally, I'm sorta moderate on the issue. I think Germans should be aware of their past and safeguard against repeating it. The Nazis were horrific.

However, I don't think the acts of your average German's great or great-great grandparents should mean that modern day Germans should have to promote policies that hurt the average citizen. I also don't see how guilt over
Nazism should translate into mollycoddling Jew-haters. That makes no sense at all.

I also don't like that communism is given a pass. You'll never see a street named after a Nazi or anything of honor for a Nazi, and you shouldn't. However, Berlin has Soviet war memorials, streets named after and memorials honoring people like Rosa Luxembourg, Ernst Thälmann, and others. Those were horrible people who should not be honored.

That’s interesting. I always wondered with how nice the German people are in America what their view was of that brutal dictator in Germany.

 

[Horn6721]

I wonder I35 if that is when they became true Americans?

 

[Monahorns]

We haven't tried - certainly not like we tried in the 1940s, because we had a different mentality. You raised the issue of giving the enemy a recruiting tool and creating a bigger problem if we went after Muslims harder. We had people who thought like that in 1941, but nobody listened to them. After Pearl Harbor, we decided to seek revenge and destroy the threat forever. We weren't going to go soft on Japan just because it was going to mean getting forced into a far bigger conflict. Because of that, we had a few really nasty years of war with Japan and because of that, Germany and Italy, but we destroyed all three threats and completely reordered their societies. None have been a problem since. In fact, all three have been generally reliable allies.

Then with Korea, we decided it would be cool to start half-assing war - slap the bad guys around but don't totally finish them off because doing so would get really ugly. It's like Inigo Montoya choosing to swordfight left-handed. And sure enough, we're still farting around with North Korea, just like we're still farting around with the Taliban. It's a very expensive, ineffective, and dangerous way to fight a war./QUOTE]

For some reason Hornfans keeps putting my comments in the quote.



Well, not too disagree with you too much because I agree with you in general, but today Muslim radicals do use US occupation in Muslim countries as a recruiting tool. Their ideology doesn't allow for any kind of control or perceived control of Muslim countries by infidels. That is a difference between Japan and Germany. Not that anyone wants to lose a war or have a foreign occupier but those countries didn't have the same ideology.

I agree with you in an indirect kind of way that we waged war on the Taliban differently than Japan and Germany. There was no real military goal or sets of goals to determine what was victory and what the end situation must be like. It is really damning that the US military jumped into a war without thinking through those things down to the detail.

I agree that is a very expensive, ineffective, and dangerous way to fight a war.

The other big difference that we have to understand though in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to Japan and Germany and Korea is that the real political power there is not the Nation-state but tribal and religious factions. That plays a role in the why and how we chose to fight the ME wars. It also means we couldn't do the same things as we did against Germany and Japan.

To your initial point about the US not trying against the Taliban. Please educate me, what did we not do that we should have done?

 

[Monahorns]

Two reasons. First, we should change our approach. I want to let Inigo Montoya swordfight right-handed. Finish off the Taliban and end the problem at least in Afghanistan, even if it means killing a lot of people and pissing people off. Is it ok to enable people to hijack planes and crash them into buildings or not? If it's not, then this is the only option. Serious nations don't back down after something like that. Second, we're in a horrible position to negotiate. If you start from the premise that you're leaving and too tired to fight, the Taliban isn't going to give you much of a deal. Basically, we're telling them we're leaving and begging them not to butcher the people who allied with us. That'll go about as well as our withdrawl from Vietnam.

Okay, maybe you answered my question with this above. If there is more to it, I would be glad to hear it.

I have several comments or questions about your proposal. My first comment is that one problem with changing course is the time, money, and blood already spent. Afghanistan has suffered for 18 years for allowing Al Qaeda to train there and the American people have tired, rightly so, of this poorly managed war. Plus, I don't trust the US military to actually do what you proposed so in the real world I would say no. Theoretically in year 1 , or even maybe year 5, that is a fine strategy.

There are several problems I can see with your proposal that would be interesting to hear your comments about. First, is that it involves several other Muslim countries surrounding it and potentially China. The reason we didn't eliminate the Taliban is that they fled to the mountains outside of Afghanistan. Pursuing them would involve potentially Pakistan, Iran, China, etc in the conflict. That is a good reason not to do as you said.

The other comment is you said "even if it means killing a lot of people." What people are you talking about? Civilians? Chinese? Pakistani? Afghani tribes who aren't Taliban? I am very against this talk of collateral damage. It doesn't justify our actions. I understand some may be inevitable and justified, but it can't be used a blanket justification. Not sure if you were, but curious to know.

 

[Joe Fan]

Mike Pompeo says former Obama-Biden-Clinton-Kerry folks are telling the leaders of Iran to wait out President Trump. They are saying to the mad mullahs that if Trump loses in Nov, America will go back to appeasing their sorry asses and giving them free money.

Could these retards be any more disgusting? Maybe it even counts as treason

Marc Thiessen: Trump's Iran strategy is working. Pompeo right to call out ex-Obama team members

 

[Joe Fan]

Although the Dow is up 240 points on the day, I regret to tell you it is only up 0.83% for the year

 

[Joe Fan]

"When stocks finish the first five days higher, the S&P 500 has been positive more than 80% of the time at year-end with an average gain of about 13%"​

'First five days' indicator, which has a good track record at predicting year, off to good start

 

[Joe Fan]

AAPL holla

 

[Mr. Deez]

I agree with you in general, but today Muslim radicals do use US occupation in Muslim countries as a recruiting tool. Their ideology doesn't allow for any kind of control or perceived control of Muslim countries by infidels. That is a difference between Japan and Germany.

I don't doubt that they use the infidel's presence to recruit and that it enrages their people. However, I disagree that this is a big distinction from the Japanese and Germans. Those were wildly nationalistic countries, and Japan was probably even more closed and hostile to foreign presence than the Middle East is. They hated our presence in the Rhineland after WWI and hated the Allied presence after WWII. Do you think a bunch of Germans liked being dominated by Russians and Americans, both of whom they considered racially impure? Do you think they liked Russian dudes in the East and black dudes from the US Army in the West banging and impregnating their little Aryan daughters? Hell no. Remember these were people who considered Jews subhuman. Ditto for the Japanese. They accepted it because they had no choice and had their will beaten out of them.

It is really damning that the US military jumped into a war without thinking through those things down to the detail.

The US military doesn't set the parameters that limit what we do. The politicians do that and expect the military to work within those parameters.

The other big difference that we have to understand though in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to Japan and Germany and Korea is that the real political power there is not the Nation-state but tribal and religious factions. That plays a role in the why and how we chose to fight the ME wars. It also means we couldn't do the same things as we did against Germany and Japan.

Is it that big of a difference? They weren't necessarily religious, but there were a ton of very powerful non-state actors certainly in Germany that we had to deal with. Of course, the Allies had to defeat the Wehrmacht on the battlefield, but they also had to deal with the entire Nazi Party apparatus and institutions, which were enormous and had their hand in virtually everything in German society - schools, media, law enforcement, organized labor, businesses, and huge civic organizations. Millions of people were involved in these, and we criminalized them, shut them down, seized their assets, and jailed or killed almost everyone in charge of them.

To your initial point about the US not trying against the Taliban. Please educate me, what did we not do that we should have done?

We should have sent a bigger force and taken a much firmer grip on their society and their economy like we did in Germany and Japan. The economic factor was big. One reason Japan and Germany didn't resist much after the war - we decided who had food and water and who didn't. It's hard to stir up **** when the people you're doing it to can decide if you ever see a slice of bread or a glass of water again.

My first comment is that one problem with changing course is the time, money, and blood already spent. Afghanistan has suffered for 18 years for allowing Al Qaeda to train there and the American people have tired, rightly so, of this poorly managed war.

How is this a reason to pull out and nullify much of what we did in those 18 years?

First, is that it involves several other Muslim countries surrounding it and potentially China. The reason we didn't eliminate the Taliban is that they fled to the mountains outside of Afghanistan. Pursuing them would involve potentially Pakistan, Iran, China, etc in the conflict. That is a good reason not to do as you said.

Maybe they leave, and maybe they don't. It is better than them being left in charge of a nation where they'd have sovereignty and the ability to make laws, harbor terrorist organizations, etc. Furthermore, sometimes we can make arrangements with the nations they run to and get them anyway. (See Osama Bin Laden.) Taliban leaders are a lot more dangerous in charge of a nation than they are dispersed in villages in Pakistan or China.

The other comment is you said "even if it means killing a lot of people." What people are you talking about? Civilians? Chinese? Pakistani? Afghani tribes who aren't Taliban? I am very against this talk of collateral damage. It doesn't justify our actions. I understand some may be inevitable and justified, but it can't be used a blanket justification. Not sure if you were, but curious to know.

Collateral damage isn't justified? Under that logic, we'd never wage any war. In fact, we'd still be a British colony. Civilians (innocent and not so innocent) die in warfare. They always have, and they always will. And yes, civilians would die in Afghanistan if we took it seriously. Why? Because for all their trash talk and screaming, Islamic radicals are the some of the biggest ******* alive. They don't go fight on battlefields. They hide in villages with women and children, because they know that makes it more politically difficult for us to track them down and kill them. Of course, that doesn't mean we should just needlessly butcher women and children. We should definitely do our best not to have collateral damage of any kind. However, we shouldn't tolerate evil and put our own citizens at risk just because some crackpots are gutless cowards who hide behind women and children.

 

[Horn6721]

At one time during Obama we had ROEs that said if we were taking fire IF we could not clearly isolate the attackers from civilians we should not engage even when it meant our troops would be killed.
Actually that kind of thinking has been part of our strategy all along in both Afghanistan and iraq .

 

[Mr. Deez]

At one time during Obama we had ROEs that said if we were taking fire IF we cluld not clearly isolate the attackers from civilians we should not engage even when it meangt our troops would be killed.
Actually that kind of thinking has been part of our strategy all along in both Afghanistan and iraq .

Yep. You can't fight a war the way.

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D
Your point exactly. No sane person wants war but if it has to be then should it not be fought as aggressively as possible to shorten it?
Doesn't that actually save lives?
Thinking of Sherman and even Truman as examples

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mr D
Your point exactly. No sane person wants war but if it has to be then should it not be fought as aggressively as possible to shorten it?
Doesn't that actually save lives?
Thinking of Sherman and even Truman as examples

Yep. We've never won a war that we half-assed and have never lost a war that we didn't half-***. I'm sometimes framed as a warmonger here, but I'm really not. However, if we go to war, the gloves should be off, and we should completely clobber the enemy as quickly as we can.

 

[Monahorns]

I don't doubt that they use the infidel's presence to recruit and that it enrages their people. However, I disagree that this is a big distinction from the Japanese and Germans. Those were wildly nationalistic countries, and Japan was probably even more closed and hostile to foreign presence than the Middle East is. They hated our presence in the Rhineland after WWI and hated the Allied presence after WWII. Do you think a bunch of Germans liked being dominated by Russians and Americans, both of whom they considered racially impure? Do you think they liked Russian dudes in the East and black dudes from the US Army in the West banging and impregnating their little Aryan daughters? Hell no. Remember these were people who considered Jews subhuman. Ditto for the Japanese. They accepted it because they had no choice and had their will beaten out of them.

They were I agree. Good points. But that doesn't really address my points about ideology because the ideology I had in mind was formal Muslim doctrine. Japanese and Germans I am sure resented occupation. But their religion didn't teach them that they had a sacred duty to expel any "Christian" occupier. Japan is Zen Buddhist, which does devalue human life a bit but is neutral on the issue. Germany's culture is built on Western Christianity though they had become one of the first countries to start secularizing. There was still real Christian sentiment. Their contrition even today for the sins of the Nazi Party show that, and at least partly explain why the post-WW2 period went like it did.

I guess my point is that the facts I am describing were contributing factors to them having no more will to fight.

The US military doesn't set the parameters that limit what we do. The politicians do that and expect the military to work within those parameters.

That is evidence supporting my belief that we shouldn't so aggressive. We won't accomplish anything and put even more of our people in danger during the war. Sending soldiers onto the battlefield while putting their lives even more at risk is a horrible thing. That we have a government that is so eager to do this is disturbing.

Is it that big of a difference? They weren't necessarily religious, but there were a ton of very powerful non-state actors certainly in Germany that we had to deal with. Of course, the Allies had to defeat the Wehrmacht on the battlefield, but they also had to deal with the entire Nazi Party apparatus and institutions, which were enormous and had their hand in virtually everything in German society - schools, media, law enforcement, organized labor, businesses, and huge civic organizations. Millions of people were involved in these, and we criminalized them, shut them down, seized their assets, and jailed or killed almost everyone in charge of them.

It is a huge difference. The fact that you minimize it is probably one of the reasons we have different opinions on this matter. The Nazi Party is not the same a Tribal affiliation. You make good points about the Nazi's involvement in society but you have to realize that they were what 10 years into inculcating their populace into their ideology? They had to strip down all the traditional institutions and affiliations. The US then just had to stop the Nazi enterprise and allow the pre-existing culture to come back. In Afghanistan and Iraq we are talking about stripping down their traditional culture. Islam and Tribal affiliation is what their ancient cultures are based on. How do you go about stripping that away without committing even worse atrocities than 9/11? 9/11 killed 3000 people. It was awful. It was horrendous murder. Al Qaeda did that. Not the Taliban. Not Afghani goat herders. And you are willing to killing more thousands of them to get back at Al Qaeda for their murder? Seems off base to me.

I am linking the Taliban to tribal affiliations because that ideology is contained in some Afghani tribes. The Taliban is intertwined with the Pashtun tribes. For them to be one is to be the other. So what you are saying is that you want to end the Pashtun tribe. Eliminate their culture or kill all the people because Al Qaeda committed mass murder in the US, and the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to have a training facility there. I just don't think any amount of force will change Pashtuns into any other kind of person, which means you want to kill them I guess.

Japan was a different animal because they are very centralized and hierarchical. Once we defeated the Japanese army and had the generals and emperor sign a treaty that conflict was over. No one was going to disobey the Japanese State declaration. The Japanese State would police itself in that case anyway. That is no the way the world works in the Middle East. There are multiple tribes and they all have a level of autonomy. They don't consider it binding if you get a treaty from the Afghani or Iraqi State. It has no relevance to the tribal leaders or their people This misunderstanding is one of the major reasons the wars in the ME are going so poorly and so differently than previous ones.

We should have sent a bigger force and taken a much firmer grip on their society and their economy like we did in Germany and Japan. The economic factor was big. One reason Japan and Germany didn't resist much after the war - we decided who had food and water and who didn't. It's hard to stir up **** when the people you're doing it to can decide if you ever see a slice of bread or a glass of water again.

I have never heard of that. Maybe we could try that, but I predict it won't go the same way based on the things I wrote above about tribalism. I think it would moreso result in mass murder on our parts.

How is this a reason to pull out and nullify much of what we did in those 18 years?

What have we actually accomplished in 18 years? That is my point? Why keeping throwing away bad money after good? I think the deficit is a bigger problem for American than Afghanistan goat herders. Let's balance the budget, saving on military spending will need to be one part of that.

Maybe they leave, and maybe they don't. It is better than them being left in charge of a nation where they'd have sovereignty and the ability to make laws, harbor terrorist organizations, etc. Furthermore, sometimes we can make arrangements with the nations they run to and get them anyway. (See Osama Bin Laden.) Taliban leaders are a lot more dangerous in charge of a nation than they are dispersed in villages in Pakistan or China.

But that is what we have been trying for 18 years, and it hasn't helped us get the Taliban leaders. They may be more dangerous in power, but you are advocating for occupying Afghanistan forever basically. It is a waste of life and money.

By your logic though, we should invade China and depose their Communist government. The Communists are much more dangerous in power in Beijing that running around the mountains of Western China. But it would also be a waste of money and life to try that.

Collateral damage isn't justified? Under that logic, we'd never wage any war. In fact, we'd still be a British colony. Civilians (innocent and not so innocent) die in warfare. They always have, and they always will. And yes, civilians would die in Afghanistan if we took it seriously. Why? Because for all their trash talk and screaming, Islamic radicals are the some of the biggest ******* alive. They don't go fight on battlefields. They hide in villages with women and children, because they know that makes it more politically difficult for us to track them down and kill them. Of course, that doesn't mean we should just needlessly butcher women and children. We should definitely do our best not to have collateral damage of any kind. However, we shouldn't tolerate evil and put our own citizens at risk just because some crackpots are gutless cowards who hide behind women and children.

I never said collateral damage was NEVER justified. I said it shouldn't be used as a BLANKET justification for attacking other countries.

Plus you didn't really address my question. What did you mean by "even if it means killing a lot of people?" That is an ominous statement with no qualification. It sounds like you support killing whoever in whatever numbers, so that the US can control the Middle East. I am very against that viewpoint. I think we need a whole other strategy with the ME that takes into consideration the reality of the cultures and society and what our real goals are. Indiscriminate killing should be off the table for any civilized nation.

 

[nashhorn]

Like your presentation there Mona, as I’ve stated my position several times, just get the **** out. Spy like the devil but get out and let them kill each other.

 

[Mr. Deez]

They were I agree. Good points. But that doesn't really address my points about ideology because the ideology I had in mind was formal Muslim doctrine. Japanese and Germans I am sure resented occupation. But their religion didn't teach them that they had a sacred duty to expel any "Christian" occupier.

Japan is Zen Buddhist, which does devalue human life a bit but is neutral on the issue.

Prior to the war, the Japanese would have been horrified by the idea of a foreign power occupying or having a military presence. They were extremely nationalistic and frankly had a very "blood and soil" mentality - perhaps even more so than Nazi Germany. Japan was for the Japanese and no one else.

Germany's culture is built on Western Christianity though they had become one of the first countries to start secularizing. There was still real Christian sentiment.

Yes, that is true, but they defined themselves by and were motivated by their German ethnicity (or Aryan race, as they saw it), not by their Christianity. After all, to them, a Jew who converted to Christianity was still a Jew and was still destined for the gas chambers. That's also why the primary purpose of the Nazi aggression was to form a nation that included all ethnic Germans - not Christians. That's why they annexed Austria. It's why they took the Sudetenland. It's why they wanted the Alsace region of France. It's why they wanted Western Poland. Those were areas with large ethnic German populations.

Their contrition even today for the sins of the Nazi Party show that, and at least partly explain why the post-WW2 period went like it did.

In part, yes. However, nobody gave a **** about contrition until the country was completely destroyed. That should tell you something. The guilt came after the smack-down, not before. If they hadn't been stopped, they'd feel no shame about gassing a bunch of Jews and murdering tens of millions of people.

That is evidence supporting my belief that we shouldn't so aggressive. We won't accomplish anything and put even more of our people in danger during the war. Sending soldiers onto the battlefield while putting their lives even more at risk is a horrible thing. That we have a government that is so eager to do this is disturbing.

We aren't aggressive. If you think we are, then you don't know what aggression looks like. Look at what other countries that held power have done. Look at what the world looked like before the United States became a major power. No nation has held our degree of strength and exploited it less.

It is a huge difference. The fact that you minimize it is probably one of the reasons we have different opinions on this matter. The Nazi Party is not the same a Tribal affiliation. You make good points about the Nazi's involvement in society but you have to realize that they were what 10 years into inculcating their populace into their ideology?

I don't minimize the difference. No two situations are the same. However, you (and others) seem to think that the Japanese and Germans were a bunch of flaccid ******* who just naturally have very little will to fight but that Muslims are a bunch of bold, tough guys who will always fight to the death no matter what. The reality is that the Japanese and Germans were very tough, militantly committed to their cause, and a hell of a lot smarter and more resourceful than most of the Middle East. They lost their will, because they got the hell beaten out of them and were facing certain death if they didn't give in. That's not a Christian thing or a Buddhist thing. It's a human being thing. It's why everybody who gives in does so. Keep in mind that Muslim countries beat the **** out of each other all the time and fold when they've lost.

And I'm not sure what you mean about the ten-year figure. The Nazis were only in charge for a little over ten years, but the sentiments and ideologies underlying Nazism were much, much older than that. Nazism resonated and gained traction for a reason.

And I think you underestimate the size and scope of the "Nazi enterprise." It was much deeper and broader than you think, and we didn't just restore the preexisting culture. The preexisting culture led to Nazism. The post WWII German culture was a completely new civilization with almost no resemblance to what was in place before. They still drank beer, ate bratwurst, and wore lederhosen on some holidays, but their philosophy about their country and place in the world was completely overhauled.

In Afghanistan and Iraq we are talking about stripping down their traditional culture. Islam and Tribal affiliation is what their ancient cultures are based on. How do you go about stripping that away without committing even worse atrocities than 9/11?

You wouldn't have to destroy everything. All you would have to do is rebalance the incentive structures.

Al Qaeda did that. Not the Taliban. Not Afghani goat herders. And you are willing to killing more thousands of them to get back at Al Qaeda for their murder? Seems off base to me.

The Taliban enabled Al Qaeda and gave them safe harbor and continued to do so after 9/11. They weren't Boys Scouts or useful idiots. They were bad guys. Yes, I am willing to kill goat herders to stop them if those goat herders are helping the Taliban, who help terrorists murder Americans. Sorry, but hiding behind goat herders is not a reason to let Americans get murdered.

So what you are saying is that you want to end the Pashtun tribe. Eliminate their culture or kill all the people because Al Qaeda committed mass murder in the US, and the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to have a training facility there. I just don't think any amount of force will change Pashtuns into any other kind of person, which means you want to kill them I guess.

Yes, I am willing, just like we were willing to kill every Japanese human being on the planet in 1945. However, it wouldn't have to come to that with the Pashtuns just like it didn't have to come to that with the Japanese.

Japan was a different animal because they are very centralized and hierarchical. Once we defeated the Japanese army and had the generals and emperor sign a treaty that conflict was over. No one was going to disobey the Japanese State declaration. The Japanese State would police itself in that case anyway. That is no the way the world works in the Middle East.

The Middle East doesn't rely on state actors as much as the Japanese did, but it does have its leaderships in its militaries and religious institutions. People can be brought under control. (And the Emperor signed a treaty, because his empire was destroyed and didn't do so until it was destroyed. Remember, Hiroshima getting nuked wasn't enough.)

I have never heard of that. Maybe we could try that, but I predict it won't go the same way based on the things I wrote above about tribalism. I think it would moreso result in mass murder on our parts.

Well, we'd have to destroy the local economies and reorganize them like we did in Germany and Japan. Again, I think you overestimate the will of these people relative to other peoples. We wouldn't have to commit mass murder. If the Middle East functioned as you think it did, they would have wiped themselves out millennia ago. Avoiding starvation is a tremendous motivator no matter what your religion or tribe happens to be.

What have we actually accomplished in 18 years? That is my point? Why keeping throwing away bad money after good?

Well, we killed Osama Bin Laden. I think that's an accomplishment. It's not enough, but it's an accomplishment.

I think the deficit is a bigger problem for American than Afghanistan goat herders. Let's balance the budget, saving on military spending will need to be one part of that.

You're right about the deficit. Half-assing a war costs a fortune. It's a lot more expensive than what I'm talking about. We'd be hundreds of billions ahead if we did what I'm suggesting.

They may be more dangerous in power, but you are advocating for occupying Afghanistan forever basically. It is a waste of life and money.

No, it's much cheaper. And what do you do if the Taliban goes back to what it was doing before the war? If they become a safe haven for terror organizations to launch war on the United States, what is your plan?

By your logic though, we should invade China and depose their Communist government. The Communists are much more dangerous in power in Beijing that running around the mountains of Western China. But it would also be a waste of money and life to try that.

Not at all. My motivation for destroying the Taliban is that they enabled somebody to go murder thousands of Americans on US soil. As much as I dislike China, they haven't done that, so I'm going to support invading China and deposing their government. I think we should be militarily prepared for that in case the need arises, but no, we shouldn't do anything like that.

I never said collateral damage was NEVER justified. I said it shouldn't be used as a BLANKET justification for attacking other countries.

Who has ever said collateral damage was itself a justification for anything? All I'm saying is that avoiding it shouldn't be justification for letting bad apples go free.

What did you mean by "even if it means killing a lot of people?" That is an ominous statement with no qualification. It sounds like you support killing whoever in whatever numbers, so that the US can control the Middle East.

You're a pretty sharp guy. Why do you say **** like this? I'm not talking about "controlling the Middle East." Why the wild hyperbole? You libertarians thrive on that nonsensical rhetoric. I'm talking about destroying a regime in one country that harbored and enabled a terror group to murder a bunch of Americans. That regime should not be allowed to exist - period, and if that means having to kill people to keep it from existing I'm OK with that. No, that doesn't mean we should needlessly murder everybody, but it does mean that we should force our will in this situation. Is it OK to knowingly enable people to murder large numbers of American civilians on American soil OK, or is it not? I say it isn't. You can disagree, but I'm not OK with it.

 

[theiioftx]

Melt it into glass or get out.