Political Roundtable - Part VI

[popper]

When I open the paper - it seems like the rest of the world is in free-fall these days. The headlines for the NY Times and Wall Street Journal seem very negative for everything outside our borders. Seem the same to you guys?

Yep. I would include a free-fall within our borders as well. Those who have studied and understood the lessons of history know, or should know, the reasons for our deteriorating social and economic conditions. The ignorant, easily deceived and selfish among us make it almost impossible to define and address the root causes of the dysfunction.

[dckingsfan]

When I open the paper - it seems like the rest of the world is in free-fall these days. The headlines for the NY Times and Wall Street Journal seem very negative for everything outside our borders. Seem the same to you guys?

Yep. I would include a free-fall within our borders as well. Those who have studied and understood the lessons of history know, or should know, the reasons for our deteriorating social and economic conditions. The ignorant, easily deceived and selfish among us make it almost impossible to define and address the root causes of the dysfunction.

I don't like that Obama's foreign policy is taking an a$$ whopping. It is going to make it that much harder on the next president.

[dobrojim]

One could have rightfully said as much about his predecessor. I wonder how long before we realize that intervening
with our military seemingly every time there is a crisis somewhere almost always results in unintended, unfortunate
and expensive consequences.

[FreeBalling]

Another man dies in police custody...this time an American soldier.

Are we outraged now?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/justice/2015/ ... s-jail.cnn

Any idea why the man became so violent in his jail cell? All he had to do was keep his mouth shut and serve his 48 hours so he could go home to his family. Why provoke the police?

The death of this man is very disturbing. Black males and police have real issues in society. That's the perception I see. He should have just complied with the direction of the court and did his time. I'd like to see the whole tape, I'm sure the police could have just left him to cool down.

When the police stop me, I just answer their questions and only their questions. If I'm in the car, hands are at 10 and 2. I'm not moving around in the car and make sure my hands are visible from the driver side mirror. The objective here is to leave the police stop still breathing and unhurt.

Here are the facts:

He had PTSD, which he had reported to them before he entered custody. He was smearing blood on the walls of his cell, which clearly indicated a sign of a mental disorder. He communicated that he couldn't breathe and was choking on blood.

He was supposed to be there on a 2-day stint for a DUI. He left their custody dead.

"Provoking" the police is your supposition--it isn't fact. And the burden of keeping him safe and alive is on the police, not the inmate. Also, there is something called proportanility, which wasn't used in this situation. They sent a 5-man team in full riot gear to subdue a soldier with PTSD. There was no doctor present. He died...

The man was clearly a danger to himself and officers. The article points out how he was smearing blood walls. What happens if he bleeds out and the cops do nothing? The officer asked the man very politely to calm down so his injury could be addressed. The request did nothing to resolve the issue.

The police have protocols for dealing with issues like the matter above. They use force by numbers to over power the individual, resisting only causes more problems. There's nothing new here and wise people know what's coming. Maybe they could have used a dart gun to inject him with the medication. I wonder if the guy was on drugs (speculation only) could the two drugs have created a life-threatening situation?

It's got to suck to be a cop these day. I'm all for cameras and putting the crooked officers in jail. All American deserve the same rights. This is my suggestion to anyone about going to jail, act like your at church. Because all of your Civil Liberties are gone.

[TGW]

^^^He wasn't on drugs. A full toxicology report was done on him post-death and no traces of drugs/alcohol were in his system. He just had an episode, which they were aware of.

The point is that the police should have better ways for dealing with situations like this other than force. Here's the transcript of the conversation the victim had with one of the officers after being subdued:

SGT. JAMES BROWN: Now that’s blocking too much air. That’s over my nose and my mouth. Could you unhook my arm out of this?
PRISON GUARD: You need to calm down first.
SGT. JAMES BROWN: Can I lay on the floor?
PRISON GUARD: No, sir.
SGT. JAMES BROWN: Well, you’re going to have to do one or the other to help my breathing. Please, that’s all I ask.
PRISON GUARD: You got to calm down a little bit first.
SGT. JAMES BROWN: I will. I just need the mask off—please.
PRISON GUARD: Relax.
SGT. JAMES BROWN: Please. Please. I can’t breathe. I can’t relax. You’ve got to take this mask off, dude, please.
PRISON GUARD: Can’t take it off, sir. I’m sorry.

By the end of the video, Brown said he couldn't breathe more than 20 times. I disagree that he was a danger after he was subdued.

[dobrojim]

what science has shown actually motivates us - you may need an open mind to accept the results

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc[/youtube]

[Induveca]

One could have rightfully said as much about his predecessor. I wonder how long before we realize that intervening
with our military seemingly every time there is a crisis somewhere almost always results in unintended, unfortunate
and expensive consequences.

That argument isn't valid for every conflict.

[dckingsfan]

One could have rightfully said as much about his predecessor. I wonder how long before we realize that intervening with our military seemingly every time there is a crisis somewhere almost always results in unintended, unfortunate and expensive consequences.

That argument isn't valid for every conflict.

Agreed. Both with dobro's point - that GW's foreign policy was bad. And that military intervention sometimes is needed in fact sometimes it is more expense NOT to intervene.

And my original point that Obama's foreign policy is bad as well - stands as well.

14 years of bad foreign policy is weighing on us and our partners around the world. I wonder if it will actually have a place in the upcoming presidential debates?

[dobrojim]

65 years (or more) of foreign policy futility in the middle east tells me we need to do something different.
The problem with these military interventions turns out to be that there is no practical end game or exit strategy.
Permanent victory is virtually impossible to achieve. As soon as we leave things typically revert to
where they were or worse. Usually worse due to blowback. The folks where we've intervened now
have scores they wish to settle. That's a major problem with the GWOT.
How will we know when we're done? Perhaps when we're bankrupt? Defense needs to revert generally
speaking to defending borders.

[Induveca]

65 years (or more) of foreign policy futility in the middle east tells me we need to do something different.
The problem with these military interventions turns out to be that there is no practical end game or exit strategy.
Permanent victory is virtually impossible to achieve. As soon as we leave things typically revert to
where they were or worse. Usually worse due to blowback. The folks where we've intervened now
have scores they wish to settle. That's a major problem with the GWOT.
How will we know when we're done? Perhaps when we're bankrupt? Defense needs to revert generally
speaking to defending borders.

There is no exit strategy, the goal is to slow the current barbaric slaughter of tens of thousands of people. No one knows how long that will take, but we do know it didn't need to happen. The presence of US troops in Iraq had kept ISIS focused on Al-Assad in Syria.

Anyone who thinks the ISIS situation is going to improve, while casually watching mass slaughter and genocide occur are just as guilty as western europe during the early 1930s. How long does the world wait to slow these guys down?

And how much will that cost? Leaving 10k troops at a minimal cost in Iraq would have avoided this entire situation, Obama's horrible foreign policies are piling on top of Bush's equally horrible foreign policies. The US is being threatened daily in open waters by the Iranian Navy, being advised by close ME allies (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel) that the Iranian nuclear agreement is a farce. Yet Obama takes the 1931 French approach of feigned ignorance.

The answer isn't to pretend this is "someone else's problem". It's not, the US made this ENTIRE problem. The US promised its allies in the region (who are crucial to the world economy) to not abandon Iraq. ISIS is on the doorstep of Jordan, Baghdad and without action Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They are already in Yemen, placing them next to the UAE. However, luckily the vast majority are still in NW Iraq. They can be pushed back with a year long ground assault. What's going on there is too horrific for the world to ignore, and specifically the US who incubated the situation.

[FreeBalling]

^^^He wasn't on drugs. A full toxicology report was done on him post-death and no traces of drugs/alcohol were in his system. He just had an episode, which they were aware of.

The point is that the police should have better ways for dealing with situations like this other than force. Here's the transcript of the conversation the victim had with one of the officers after being subdued:

SGT. JAMES BROWN: Now that’s blocking too much air. That’s over my nose and my mouth. Could you unhook my arm out of this?
PRISON GUARD: You need to calm down first.
SGT. JAMES BROWN: Can I lay on the floor?
PRISON GUARD: No, sir.
SGT. JAMES BROWN: Well, you’re going to have to do one or the other to help my breathing. Please, that’s all I ask.
PRISON GUARD: You got to calm down a little bit first.
SGT. JAMES BROWN: I will. I just need the mask off—please.
PRISON GUARD: Relax.
SGT. JAMES BROWN: Please. Please. I can’t breathe. I can’t relax. You’ve got to take this mask off, dude, please.
PRISON GUARD: Can’t take it off, sir. I’m sorry.

By the end of the video, Brown said he couldn't breathe more than 20 times. I disagree that he was a danger after he was subdued.

After restraints were put him the medical staff had to inject SGT. Brown twice with a sedative. I definitely agree with you TGW, there should be a better way to deliver a sedative first to resolve the hostel situation when a person is confined to a holding cell. I'm a prior Infantry soldier myself and never like seeing a veteran being treated that way. Especially if he was suffering from PTSD, that's even more upsetting. I know several people with PTSD. One guy I know freaked out on the golf course when several helicopters (Black Hawks) flew over our location. I was not sure what to do. Thankfully the situation resolved itself after the helicopters passed.

I'd like to see the whole tape. Just to see what started the chain of events. If you ever find it please send me a PM.

[dckingsfan]

65 years (or more) of foreign policy futility in the middle east tells me we need to do something different.
The problem with these military interventions turns out to be that there is no practical end game or exit strategy.
Permanent victory is virtually impossible to achieve. As soon as we leave things typically revert to
where they were or worse. Usually worse due to blowback. The folks where we've intervened now
have scores they wish to settle. That's a major problem with the GWOT.
How will we know when we're done? Perhaps when we're bankrupt? Defense needs to revert generally
speaking to defending borders.

There is no exit strategy, the goal is to slow the current barbaric slaughter of tens of thousands of people. No one knows how long that will take, but we do know it didn't need to happen. The presence of US troops in Iraq had kept ISIS focused on Al-Assad in Syria.

Anyone who thinks the ISIS situation is going to improve, while casually watching mass slaughter and genocide occur are just as guilty as western europe during the early 1930s. How long does the world wait to slow these guys down?

And how much will that cost? Leaving 10k troops at a minimal cost in Iraq would have avoided this entire situation, Obama's horrible foreign policies are piling on top of Bush's equally horrible foreign policies. The US is being threatened daily in open waters by the Iranian Navy, being advised by close ME allies (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel) that the Iranian nuclear agreement is a farce. Yet Obama takes the 1931 French approach of feigned ignorance.

The answer isn't to pretend this is "someone else's problem". It's not, the US made this ENTIRE problem. The US promised its allies in the region (who are crucial to the world economy) to not abandon Iraq. ISIS is on the doorstep of Jordan, Baghdad and without action Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They are already in Yemen, placing them next to the UAE. However, luckily the vast majority are still in NW Iraq. They can be pushed back with a year long ground assault. What's going on there is too horrific for the world to ignore, and specifically the US who incubated the situation.

You make a very good point - which I very much don't like. I would like to leave the region - after all, much of it was caused by the Bush foreign policy. I would like to be done with this... but, we had a large hand in causing the situation - do we just turn our back.

I know that the Clinton very much regretted the Rwanda genocide... my guess is that we are going to regret Syria when it is all done.

[dobrojim]

A strategy without an exit strategy or endgame plan isn't a strategy at all.
It will be doomed to failure. You need a realistic plan of response to
virtually every conceivable what if...You also need a realistic assessment
on the limits to the resources, both blood and treasure, you are prepared
as well as actually able to sacrifice. If you want to escalate our intervention,
you need to be prepared to explain what your plans and limits are.

The ironic/sad reality is that we probably need to align with Iran in order to
stabilize Iraq, Iraq being a Shia majority 'country' however artificially conceived.
They might be the most rational actors in the region at the present time.
Not sure how analogous Iraq/Syria are to Rwanda. I'd say they're a whole lot
more complicated. Just like every negotiation in which concessions are
made is not analogous to Chamberlain at Munich.

I know one thing for sure, no one should EVER listen to the neo-cons again.
They were so hugely wrong and so hugely incompetent all while casting
anyone who disagreed with them as unpatriotic wussies.

[Induveca]

A strategy without an exit strategy or endgame plan isn't a strategy at all.
It will be doomed to failure. You need a realistic plan of response to
virtually every conceivable what if...You also need a realistic assessment
on the limits to the resources, both blood and treasure, you are prepared
as well as actually able to sacrifice. If you want to escalate our intervention,
you need to be prepared to explain what your plans and limits are.

The ironic/sad reality is that we probably need to align with Iran in order to
stabilize Iraq, Iraq being a Shia majority 'country' however artificially conceived.
They might be the most rational actors in the region at the present time.
Not sure how analogous Iraq/Syria are to Rwanda. I'd say they're a whole lot
more complicated. Just like every negotiation in which concessions are
made is not analogous to Chamberlain at Munich.

I know one thing for sure, no one should EVER listen to the neo-cons again.
They were so hugely wrong and so hugely incompetent all while casting
anyone who disagreed with them as unpatriotic wussies.

What George W. Bush's administration did nearly 15 years ago shouldn't damn tens of thousands to slaughter at the hands of a group this country largely created. When poor decisions have been made, responsible entities don't "cut and run" and leave neighboring allies in precarious situations.

ISIS isn't going to magically disappear. I spend a lot of time in the region on business, and what most won't say is it simply isn't possible to build a fighting force capable of defeating ISIS outside of Israel who has no interest in seeing them go away.

The three nations who can "afford" to fight them with sophisticated technology are fully reliant upon US training, however their armies are almost exclusively made up of "resident aliens", specifically Pakistanis (and in some cash Indian and Indonesian). They are there to collect a check and will tuck and run at the first sight of ISIS. The royals know this, as does the American military.

So there comes a choice. Let ISIS dominate the region, gain a huge portion's of the world's wealth and take a stranglehold on energy/trade in the region? All the while slaughtering 100,000+ and possibly far beyond? Or does the country that created the situation in the first place do something beyond "neocon" and "liberal" bitching and stop the genocide? If this was happening in Colombia on this scale, the US would have already put an end to it with military force. Sadly, for a misguided hispanic vote (dominicans wouldn't care). Muslims have been labeled evil etc etc by the media now, and sadly most people believe it......

These are mothers, fathers children all living quite normal lives. They are being slaughtered by true barbarics. Being put in cages, burned to death, decapitated with their heads put on spikes. Meanwhile the entire world just watches and pretends the "rich" neighbors of Iraq/Syria can actually do anything militarily. They can't. Those countries are all completely reliant upon the US military for intelligence, hardware, training. Anything they do, US military consultants direct.

The solution was an easy one, leave behind 10-20k troops in Iraq and any single incursion into Iraq ISIS would have been met with a barrage of precision artillery and air strikes. They wouldn't have gained any traction. Obama removed them all, without care of the Pentagon's objections seemingly to fulfill a misguided promise made prior to him having any knowledge whatsoever of foreign policy.

Someone needs to rescue these people, this is very similar to the run up of WW2. Atrocities being committed while the world turns a very knowing eye.

[popper]

A strategy without an exit strategy or endgame plan isn't a strategy at all.
It will be doomed to failure. You need a realistic plan of response to
virtually every conceivable what if...You also need a realistic assessment
on the limits to the resources, both blood and treasure, you are prepared
as well as actually able to sacrifice. If you want to escalate our intervention,
you need to be prepared to explain what your plans and limits are.

The ironic/sad reality is that we probably need to align with Iran in order to
stabilize Iraq, Iraq being a Shia majority 'country' however artificially conceived.
They might be the most rational actors in the region at the present time.
Not sure how analogous Iraq/Syria are to Rwanda. I'd say they're a whole lot
more complicated. Just like every negotiation in which concessions are
made is not analogous to Chamberlain at Munich.

I know one thing for sure, no one should EVER listen to the neo-cons again.
They were so hugely wrong and so hugely incompetent all while casting
anyone who disagreed with them as unpatriotic wussies.

According to Obama, Iraq was an extraordinary achievement.

...On Dec. 14, 2011, when he was removing the last U.S. troops from Iraq, Obama gave a speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Here he said his strategy based on building a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq had succeeded.

“It’s harder to end a war than begin one,” Obama said at Fort Bragg. “Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq--all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering--all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations. And we are ending a war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making.”...

[penbeast0]

It seems to me that IF we are going to fight ISIS, we should actually commit to fighting them and throw the entire (non-nuclear) might of the U.S. military in. I have always hated the idea of a partial commitment to war. It's been a loser pretty consistently from Vietnam on. If we are going to fight against someone, we should fight to win.

That doesn't mean I support a war in the Middle East, just that if we are using aircraft there and "military advisors," the other side of the conflict clearly thinks we are at war against it and hate builds more the longer it goes on. What we do is just build the other side and recruit for them. Fight to win or stay out.

[dobrojim]

A strategy without an exit strategy or endgame plan isn't a strategy at all.
It will be doomed to failure. You need a realistic plan of response to
virtually every conceivable what if...You also need a realistic assessment
on the limits to the resources, both blood and treasure, you are prepared
as well as actually able to sacrifice. If you want to escalate our intervention,
you need to be prepared to explain what your plans and limits are.

The ironic/sad reality is that we probably need to align with Iran in order to
stabilize Iraq, Iraq being a Shia majority 'country' however artificially conceived.
They might be the most rational actors in the region at the present time.
Not sure how analogous Iraq/Syria are to Rwanda. I'd say they're a whole lot
more complicated. Just like every negotiation in which concessions are
made is not analogous to Chamberlain at Munich.

I know one thing for sure, no one should EVER listen to the neo-cons again.
They were so hugely wrong and so hugely incompetent all while casting
anyone who disagreed with them as unpatriotic wussies.

I note that I have yet to see any response to these specific requirements
from the interventionist crowd. What are your contingency plans
(Quite often the advocates for war are completely unrealistic in their
assessment of the need for contingency planning)?

What are the limits on the resources you feel you can apply?
(who's taxes are going to be raised to pay for your intervention,
our initial major intervention has been estimated at at least $2T)

What is the measure of success that will allow you to say "OK we can leave now"?
(Will it be realistic to assume that once that measure is achieved, things will not
revert as soon as we pull out, like we have already seen)

What is your expected cost in lives and treasure to reach that point?
Would you institute conscription or would you continue to allow mostly
poor people from small town America with few other options to continue
to shoulder the majority of the burden?

To advocate for intervention without being able to address these
basic and obvious questions is irresponsible at best.

[dobrojim]

It seems to me that IF we are going to fight ISIS, we should actually commit to fighting them and throw the entire (non-nuclear) might of the U.S. military in. I have always hated the idea of a partial commitment to war. It's been a loser pretty consistently from Vietnam on. If we are going to fight against someone, we should fight to win.

I believe you need to recognize that given the clear superiority of our forces, winning has never been
an issue. The issue ALWAYS is, then what?

That doesn't mean I support a war in the Middle East, just that if we are using aircraft there and "military advisors," the other side of the conflict clearly thinks we are at war against it and hate builds more the longer it goes on. What we do is just build the other side and recruit for them. Fight to win or stay out.

The problem with this (all out war) is simple:
Victory ain't what it used to be. After our inevitable victory, we will not simply be able to leave.
We will likely find ourselves in the same position we were in 2005-2007 (after a convincing victory).
The costs of occupation in both lives and treasure will be unsustainable, say nothing of the psychic
damage done to our occupying forces put in the impossible position of maintaining order when
they will not be able to discern friend from foe. Many will be permanently damaged as human beings.

[dckingsfan]

It seems to me that IF we are going to fight ISIS, we should actually commit to fighting them and throw the entire (non-nuclear) might of the U.S. military in. I have always hated the idea of a partial commitment to war. It's been a loser pretty consistently from Vietnam on. If we are going to fight against someone, we should fight to win.

I believe you need to recognize that given the clear superiority of our forces, winning has never been
an issue. The issue ALWAYS is, then what?

That doesn't mean I support a war in the Middle East, just that if we are using aircraft there and "military advisors," the other side of the conflict clearly thinks we are at war against it and hate builds more the longer it goes on. What we do is just build the other side and recruit for them. Fight to win or stay out.

The problem with this (all out war) is simple:
Victory ain't what it used to be. After our inevitable victory, we will not simply be able to leave.
We will likely find ourselves in the same position we were in 2005-2007 (after a convincing victory).
The costs of occupation in both lives and treasure will be unsustainable, say nothing of the psychic
damage done to our occupying forces put in the impossible position of maintaining order when
they will not be able to discern friend from foe. Many will be permanently damaged as human beings.

Agreed with that - in Rwanda we didn't want to go in because of the cost... if we are going to cede our position - then we should just cede it and withdraw. Withdraw from Europe, the Middle East, the far east and be done.

[Zonkerbl]

A strategy without an exit strategy or endgame plan isn't a strategy at all.
It will be doomed to failure. You need a realistic plan of response to
virtually every conceivable what if...You also need a realistic assessment
on the limits to the resources, both blood and treasure, you are prepared
as well as actually able to sacrifice. If you want to escalate our intervention,
you need to be prepared to explain what your plans and limits are.

The ironic/sad reality is that we probably need to align with Iran in order to
stabilize Iraq, Iraq being a Shia majority 'country' however artificially conceived.
They might be the most rational actors in the region at the present time.
Not sure how analogous Iraq/Syria are to Rwanda. I'd say they're a whole lot
more complicated. Just like every negotiation in which concessions are
made is not analogous to Chamberlain at Munich.

I know one thing for sure, no one should EVER listen to the neo-cons again.
They were so hugely wrong and so hugely incompetent all while casting
anyone who disagreed with them as unpatriotic wussies.

According to Obama, Iraq was an extraordinary achievement.

...On Dec. 14, 2011, when he was removing the last U.S. troops from Iraq, Obama gave a speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Here he said his strategy based on building a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq had succeeded.

“It’s harder to end a war than begin one,” Obama said at Fort Bragg. “Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq--all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering--all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations. And we are ending a war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making.”...

You're an awfully hard man to please. Obama makes a conciliatory gesture to his predecessor whose mess he is cleaning up and you're killing him for it.

I hope you are never in a position to be judged by another person. It sucks.