Political Roundtable - Part V

[nate33]

If you are looking for why the why outcome would be different, look at Bush Sr's gulf war. It castrated Hussein permanently.

... and left a power vacuum filled first by Al Queda and then by ISIS. In the final analysis, we were probably better off with Saddam. Yeah, he was a brutal dictator, but clearly, that's what's needed to keep that collection of Muslim fanatics in line.

[nate33]

Nate, the main issue is there is no other option for the U.S. With ISIS advancing on Syria, that puts them a few hundred miles from the borders of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both are extremely close allies.

I have sympathy for Israel as the only free market democracy in the region. But my sympathy isn't enough for me to commit the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives per decade, forever, just to maintain the status quo (which isn't good to begin with).

At least Israel has the fortitude to fight this battle with the necessary brutality to lead to a resolution. I think they might be better off if we stay out of their way and let them fight it the way they see fit.

[Zonkerbl]

Amen, brother.

[Induveca]

If you are looking for why the why outcome would be different, look at Bush Sr's gulf war. It castrated Hussein permanently.

... and left a power vacuum filled first by Al Queda and then by ISIS. In the final analysis, we were probably better off with Saddam. Yeah, he was a brutal dictator, but clearly, that's what's needed to keep that collection of Muslim fanatics in line.

The alternative was to let Hussein invade Kuwait and then the GCC nations. That wasn't an option, the entire world saw that.

There have been radical Islamic Jihadists in the region since the time of the Crusades. If ISIS was a Boko Haram type situation you leave it alone. To invade multiple countries, be nearly 40k strong with looted Us military and Russian equipment? Kidnapping westerners, slaughtering thousands and closing in on a close ally?

Do you know what happens if Israel were to be left to fight on its own? It's a frightening prospect, that has always been CENTCOM's nightmare. If Israel is openly attacking Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq simultaneously the ISIS movement will quadruple and the entire region will be completely destabilized for decades more. Israel understands their survival relies on an uneasy peace with Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

It's better to take out ISIS in their infancy, as a coalition with Arabs. I will give that one to Obama he was very wise to have Jordan and the GCC actively participate. Their propaganda machines will be put to full use in the Arab world to counteract outraged clerics via local press.

[nate33]

If Israel is openly attacking Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq simultaneously the ISIS movement will quadruple and the entire region will be completely destabilized for decades more.

I fail to see any distinction between Israel taking out the ISIS movement, or the Western World taking out the ISIS movement. Either way, it's going to lead to the recruitment of more fanatics. That's exactly what they want. Why do you think they're videotaping beheadings in the first place?

At this point, I don't see much of a dividing line between "moderate Muslims" and "radical Islamists". They're all the same to me because the moderates never raise a finger to stop the radicals. We can spend all the money we want to train and fund the moderates, but all that money is going to be wasted because they're going to turn tail and run when the fighting gets fierce, or they'll join the radicals.

Screw them all. Pull out and let them fight each other. If Israel can't manage to defend themselves, I'm sorry, but it's not my problem. Like I said before, I'd have an open door for the mass immigration of any Israeli refugees who decide to bail, but I'm not going to fight their wars for them.

It's better to take out ISIS in their infancy, as a coalition with Arabs. I will give that one to Obama he was very wise to have Jordan and the GCC actively participate. Their propaganda machines will be put to full use in the Arab world to counteract outraged clerics via local press.

There is no "taking out of ISIS in their infancy". We couldn't take out Al Queda. We couldn't take out Hamas. We couldn't take out the Muslim Brotherhood. We couldn't take out Khorasan. It's like playing whack a mole. Whenever you beat down one, two more pop up.

[Zonkerbl]

Israel would kick ISIS' ass up and down the Red Sea and send them whimpering back to their mothers. I'm not worried about Israel not being able to defend themselves.

[dckingsfan]

Why is ISIS Obama's problem?

Why was Hitler a US problem?

Really bad analogy.

Every time an intervention is deemed necessary the ones calling for it roll out
the Hitler analogy. The situations are not analogous.

Actually, very similar we left after WWI and had to come back for WWII causing massive losses on our side.

We left after winning the war (that shouldn't have been) only to have to return again.

Both Hitler and ISIS are more than happy to do ethnic cleansing.

[Induveca]

I understand your perspective, but there IS a major difference between the U.S./West doing it and the sworn enemy of every nation in the region.

What happens to the UAE? Only 15 percent of their residents are Emirati (completely peaceful and obscenely wealthy). The rest of the 85 percent are mostly Pakistani workers who tend to have conniptions whenever anything happens in Gaza. Qatar and Bahrain to lesser degrees. Saudi Arabia as well.

You have an argument I actually agree with, but reality gets in the way. There are too many financial interests to abandon and too many chess moves on the foreign policy board (Ukraine, Taiwan etc) to suddenly become isolationists in the region.

If Taiwan were invaded would you have the same response? What about Poland? The decision to protect Israel has a major impact on the military strategy of both Russia and China.

[dckingsfan]

Why is ISIS Obama's problem?

Why was Hitler a US problem?

By Godwin's law, you automatically lose this argument.

Generally, Godwin's law is not applied to discussions on warfare involving occupation forces - LOL - made me giggle.

[dckingsfan]

The opposite argument for isolationism can be made as well. Pull out of all regions. Have no troops on the ground stationed outside of the USA. The goal would be to get our partners to "spend up".

I could buy into this argument if it was the stated goal and executed. If our partners did so, that would be fine. But we would also have to be good with Germany, Japan, etc. controlling nuclear arms. Otherwise you have a Ukraine all over again.

Either way, it would need to be a foreign policy with a plan. Just withdrawing will, IMO, cause the world to burn.

[nate33]

I understand your perspective, but there IS a major difference between the U.S./West doing it and the sworn enemy of every nation in the region.

What happens to the UAE? Only 15 percent of their residents are Emirati (completely peaceful and obscenely wealthy). The rest of the 85 percent are mostly Pakistani workers who tend to have conniptions whenever anything happens in Gaza. Qatar and Bahrain to lesser degrees. Saudi Arabia as well.

You have an argument I actually agree with, but reality gets in the way. There are too many financial interests to abandon and too many chess moves on the foreign policy board (Ukraine, Taiwan etc) to suddenly become isolationists in the region.

If Taiwan were invaded would you have the same response? What about Poland? The decision to protect Israel has a major impact on the military strategy of both Russia and China.

Those are very good points Induveca. There would indeed be policy ramifications with our other allies. I tend to agree with dckingsfan. I would be in favor of a coordinated, step-by-step withdrawal from Germany, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea as well.

It's not that I don't think there will be consequences from a U.S. policy shift towards isolationism. It's that I know for sure that the status quo cannot be maintained much longer. People talk about our continued meddling in the Middle East as if it's truly a viable option. It's not. We are broke. If we don't get our priorities straight we will face a complete economic collapse like the U.S.S.R.

[Zonkerbl]

I didn't even know civilians saluting was a thing...

http://time.com/3425019/obamas-tea-cup- ... s-a-storm/

"The question of whether presidents should return military salutes at all is a matter of conjecture. The tradition didn’t begin until 1981, when Ronald Reagan started to return the salute, Reuters reports. At the time, military aides advised Reagan that the Commander-in-Chief returning a salute was against military protocol. But after consulting with Marine Corps commandant Gen. Robert Barrow, the two ultimately decided that as chief of the armed forces, the president was entitled to give salutes."

So basically the POTUS is the Commander in Chief so he can salute if he wants. But he is by no means required to do so, which means he can pretty much do it however the hell he wants.

[popper]

Interesting opinion piece in the WaPo this morning explaining the differences in corporate governance between Germany and the US and their impact on profit distributions, wages and worker satisfaction. Would the German model work in the US?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

[dckingsfan]

It starts with Germany using less than 1% of their GDP on defense.

[Nivek]

Interesting opinion piece in the WaPo this morning explaining the differences in corporate governance between Germany and the US and their impact on profit distributions, wages and worker satisfaction. Would the German model work in the US?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

This is interesting, as is dckingsfan point about Germany's defense spending. They spend 1.4% of GDP on defense to the USA's 3.8%. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the US is 4th in defense spending by GDP (behind Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Russia).

US GDP is highest, of course. According to same source, US accounted for 38% of world's defense spending. Next closet nation was China at 8%. Of the top 15 defense spenders, US spent $600 billion. The other 14 spent a COMBINED $644 billion.

Maybe the US could find some savings in its defense spending. Maybe.

[Zonkerbl]

Interesting opinion piece in the WaPo this morning explaining the differences in corporate governance between Germany and the US and their impact on profit distributions, wages and worker satisfaction. Would the German model work in the US?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Popper! I never would've taken you for a union sympathizer! Welcome to the Communist Party!

I mean that in all sincerity. Most conservatives I know are poor struggling blue collar types whose interests would be best represented by unions, and from what little I know about you, you are kind of in the same boat.

I find it amazing so many of these blue collar types support politicians whose interests are diametrically opposed to theirs.

[dckingsfan]

Interesting opinion piece in the WaPo this morning explaining the differences in corporate governance between Germany and the US and their impact on profit distributions, wages and worker satisfaction. Would the German model work in the US?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Popper! I never would've taken you for a union sympathizer! Welcome to the Communist Party!

I mean that in all sincerity. Most conservatives I know are poor struggling blue collar types whose interests would be best represented by unions, and from what little I know about you, you are kind of in the same boat.

I find it amazing so many of these blue collar types support politicians whose interests are diametrically opposed to theirs.

I say both parties policies have not benefitted this group for the last 40 years or so...

I would say that the Ds rhetoric is better toward this group but not their policies.

[nate33]

Interesting opinion piece in the WaPo this morning explaining the differences in corporate governance between Germany and the US and their impact on profit distributions, wages and worker satisfaction. Would the German model work in the US?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Popper! I never would've taken you for a union sympathizer! Welcome to the Communist Party!

I mean that in all sincerity. Most conservatives I know are poor struggling blue collar types whose interests would be best represented by unions, and from what little I know about you, you are kind of in the same boat.

I find it amazing so many of these blue collar types support politicians whose interests are diametrically opposed to theirs.

I say both parties policies have not benefitted this group for the last 40 years or so...

I would say that the Ds rhetoric is better toward this group but not their policies.

I agree. Unions served their purpose in mid 20th century when it truly was necessary to collectively bargain for basic wages and benefits. But in today's competitive labor market, unions have outlived their usefulness. They have either driven our private industry overseas, or they have withered on the vine as non-union shops provide similar wages and benefits without the union middlemen. The only place where unions still thrive are in government monopolies where the unholy alliance of union leaders and Democrat politicians team up to steal taxpayer money in order to bribe Democrat voters.

[Nivek]

Can we really lay blame for all that on unions, especially when real wages for all but the top 1% have remained flat for decades?

[Zonkerbl]

Nate if what you say is true, why are unions still effective in Germany?

I mean, I know why - it's written into the law that blah de blah de blah. But if what you're saying is true Germany's blue collar workers should be in the same boat ours are.