or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Ted Cruz Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Ted Cruz Thread - Page 27

post #391 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Hillary voted for Bush's war. Fuck her, right? And Kerry and Hagel...both voted for it. Fuck them, right?
I don't know but I would hope these guys have seen the error of this tactic in the Middle East. They at least pay lip service to the idea that they have . On the other hand you have Hawks more or less promising another fiasco with Iran this time . My god what kind of brain fucked retard could think another" military led regime change / nation building " foray into the ME is going to end any other way than it has in the past
post #392 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post

I don't know but I would hope these guys have seen the error of this tactic in the Middle East. They at least pay lip service to the idea that they have . On the other hand you have Hawks more or less promising another fiasco with Iran this time . My god what kind of brain fucked retard could think another" military led regime change / nation building " foray into the ME is going to end any other way than it has in the past


A teaching moment for Democrats?
post #393 of 1000
Thread Starter 

Hillary's hawkishness is hard to pin down. She has shown that she is a bit ruthless and ready to rush into things headfirst but in relatively safe (for the military) ways. Drone strikes, the NFZ in Libya, arming Syrian rebels, and a willingness to bomb Asad to hell all stop short of the occupations of the Bush administration. Afghanistan is damning but... who knows what she has in her head with regards to Iran. 

post #394 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

If we get into another war, we will probably save thousands of lives and be victorious if we are merciless. War cannot be made politically correct or peaceful.
This is the only option ( read ww2) incidentally the last war the U.S. "Won" . Are we really ready to annihilate huge urban populations because we know so much better than they do how to govern ?
post #395 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Hillary's hawkishness is hard to pin down. She has shown that she is a bit ruthless and ready to rush into things headfirst but in relatively safe (for the military) ways. Drone strikes, the NFZ in Libya, arming Syrian rebels, and a willingness to bomb Asad to hell all stop short of the occupations of the Bush administration. Afghanistan is damning but... who knows what she has in her head with regards to Iran. 

Still not going to directly condemn it, are you?

Gib, don't just go back 30 years for your statement. Go back to 1965 or so. It was a Dem that got the US into its first disastrous war in the second half of the 20th century and a Repub that got us out of it.
post #396 of 1000
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Still not going to directly condemn it, are you?

 

I don't know what you're talking about. I have always been of the opinion that all of these things have been ineffective and harmful. But they don't directly contribute to American body counts.

 

Can we say that arming the mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan led to al-Qa'ida and the USS Cole and 9/11? Sure. Can we also say that Egypt's brutality and imprisonment of Qutb and Zawahiri led to al-Qa'ida and the USS Cole and 911? Yes, we can. 

 

Sending in ground troops for an occupation guarantees large numbers of casualties. Different ballgame. 

post #397 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

I don't know what you're talking about. I have always been of the opinion that all of these things have been ineffective and harmful. But they don't directly contribute to American body counts.
 

Except when they do, of course.

Rand Paul does not want to fight any war. There's our man.
post #398 of 1000
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Except when they do, of course.

Rand Paul does not want to fight any war. There's our man.


Directly. Blowback is not direct. In any case, I think that the world is going to have to intervene further in Syria after the regime falls. We have partners willing to take out AQ but the time isn't right. That's all a bit off-topic though. 

post #399 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post


Directly. Blowback is not direct. In any case, I think that the world is going to have to intervene further in Syria after the regime falls. We have partners willing to take out AQ but the time isn't right. That's all a bit off-topic though. 

Blown up by a drone = direct, no?
post #400 of 1000
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Blown up by a drone = direct, no?


We're talking about different things. Civilian deaths should be assessed in terms of how they harm US interests. 

post #401 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Still not going to directly condemn it, are you?

Gib, don't just go back 30 years for your statement. Go back to 1965 or so. It was a Dem that got the US into its first disastrous war in the second half of the 20th century and a Repub that got us out of it.
Actually it was the mechanations Dullas brothers , the protoneocons,and the paranoia surrounding an equally well armed enemy (Soviet Union ) that got us into that little piece of nastiness. Just goes to show the stupidity of war has little or nothing to do with party line . It is one one thing to get sucked into a conflict but certainly another to promise it as a strategy of your presidency as some of these nut balls are doing now
post #402 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post


We're talking about different things. Civilian deaths should be assessed in terms of how they harm US interests. 

So when you said "US body count" you were only talking about US servicemen and not civilians? Somehow civilian deaths are not as important?

Also, two US military medics were killed by a drone strike. Yes, friendly drone fire. So again, drones don't add to the body count...except when they do.
post #403 of 1000
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


So when you said "US body count" you were only talking about US servicemen and not civilians? Somehow civilian deaths are not as important?

Also, two US military medics were killed by a drone strike. Yes, friendly drone fire. So again, drones don't add to the body count...except when they do.


What are you talking about? When you make a decision to occupy a country you are guaranteeing American deaths. Yes, there has been some fratricide, I don't see how it's relevant. You're not making any sense. 

post #404 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post


What are you talking about? When you make a decision to occupy a country you are guaranteeing American deaths. Yes, there has been some fratricide, I don't see how it's relevant. You're not making any sense. 

I'm not making sense? Um, okay. You said drones do not add to the body count. You then tried to walk that back as I kept pointing out they do. Now I'm not making sense.

confused.gif
post #405 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Except when they do, of course.

Rand Paul does not want to fight any war. There's our man.
As strange as it may seem for lifelong dem and union man I am seriously considering him as he seems to be the only spot of sanity on this issue . I mean Bernie Sanders ??? Are all these guys really that afraid of Hillary
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Ted Cruz Thread