ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable - Part VII

Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico

dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 35,433
And1: 20,781
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1481 » by dckingsfan » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:40 pm

popper wrote:This is an interesting website that provides some context and insight into the prevalence of violent crime in the U.S. It's not necessarily focused on guns but does provide a perspective on violent crime that I have not seen before. I'm too lazy to delve deep into it but others may want to have a look.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/


Ouch.

...Camden to the top of the list. Camden soars over the national average of 3.8 violent crimes per 1,000 people with 25.66 (more than six times the national average).
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,834
And1: 7,965
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1482 » by montestewart » Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:26 am

dckingsfan wrote:
popper wrote:This is an interesting website that provides some context and insight into the prevalence of violent crime in the U.S. It's not necessarily focused on guns but does provide a perspective on violent crime that I have not seen before. I'm too lazy to delve deep into it but others may want to have a look.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/


Ouch.

...Camden to the top of the list. Camden soars over the national average of 3.8 violent crimes per 1,000 people with 25.66 (more than six times the national average).

What I'd like to know is how East St. Louis went from being America's most dangerous city three years in a row (2012-2014) to not even cracking the top 100 in 2015? Maybe that tulip planting program really worked.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 35,433
And1: 20,781
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1483 » by dckingsfan » Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:32 pm

montestewart wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
popper wrote:This is an interesting website that provides some context and insight into the prevalence of violent crime in the U.S. It's not necessarily focused on guns but does provide a perspective on violent crime that I have not seen before. I'm too lazy to delve deep into it but others may want to have a look.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/


Ouch.

...Camden to the top of the list. Camden soars over the national average of 3.8 violent crimes per 1,000 people with 25.66 (more than six times the national average).

What I'd like to know is how East St. Louis went from being America's most dangerous city three years in a row (2012-2014) to not even cracking the top 100 in 2015? Maybe that tulip planting program really worked.


14) St. Louis, MO, I think if you took pockets of cities it would move up the charts.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,792
And1: 23,311
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1484 » by nate33 » Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:45 pm

montestewart wrote:What I'd like to know is how East St. Louis went from being America's most dangerous city three years in a row (2012-2014) to not even cracking the top 100 in 2015? Maybe that tulip planting program really worked.

East St. Louis is way more violent than even St. Louis. It must not have cracked the top 100 because of a population cut-off or something:

Image

Image
User avatar
Induveca
Head Coach
Posts: 7,379
And1: 724
Joined: Dec 02, 2004
   

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1485 » by Induveca » Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:05 pm

Looks like Obama decided to pass the buck on Afghanistan to the next administration. Wish he had done the same in Iraq.
crackhed
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,403
And1: 66
Joined: Sep 27, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1486 » by crackhed » Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:17 pm

Induveca wrote:Looks like Obama decided to pass the buck on Afghanistan to the next administration. Wish he had done the same in Iraq.

agree. and with russia in the neighborhood now re-establishing a presence will be tricky.
"I never apologize. I'm sorry but that's just the kind of man I am"
H. Simpson
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 35,433
And1: 20,781
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1487 » by dckingsfan » Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:16 pm

crackhed wrote:
Induveca wrote:Looks like Obama decided to pass the buck on Afghanistan to the next administration. Wish he had done the same in Iraq.

agree. and with russia in the neighborhood now re-establishing a presence will be tricky.


Front page news on both NY Times and Wall Street Journal. Both basically said that he has learned his lesson from Iraq.
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 17,103
And1: 4,211
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1488 » by dobrojim » Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:19 pm

He hasn't learned anything.

http://tinyurl.com/ol2mrsd

First came Fallujah, then Mosul and later Ramadi in Iraq. Now, there is Kunduz, a provincial capital in northern Afghanistan. In all four places, the same story has played out: In cities that newspaper reporters like to call “strategically important,” security forces trained and equipped by the US military at great expense simply folded, abandoning their posts (and much of their US-supplied weaponry) without even mounting serious resistance. Called upon to fight, they fled. In each case, the defending forces gave way before substantially outnumbered attackers, making the outcomes all the more ignominious.


Strategically important they say.
Indeed, the United States would be better served if policymakers abandoned the pretense that the Pentagon possesses any gift whatsoever for “standing up” foreign military forces. Prudence might actually counsel that Washington assume instead, when it comes to organizing, training, equipping, and motivating foreign armies, that the United States is essentially clueless.



What are the policy implications of giving up the illusion that the Pentagon knows how to build foreign armies? The largest is this: Subletting war no longer figures as a plausible alternative to waging it directly. So where US interests require that fighting be done, like it or not, we’re going to have to do that fighting ourselves. By extension, in circumstances where US forces are demonstrably incapable of winning or where Americans balk at any further expenditure of American blood — today in the Greater Middle East both of these conditions apply — then perhaps we shouldn’t be there. To pretend otherwise is to throw good money after bad or, as a famous American general once put it, to wage (even if indirectly) “the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy.” This we have been doing now for several decades across much of the Islamic world.

In American politics, we await the officeholder or candidate willing to state the obvious and confront its implications.


Neither BHO nor the American public at large has figured out anything. We continue to believe despite all available
evidence, that we can fix what we see as wrong or problematic in other countries by the use of military action.
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

Those who are convinced of absurdities, can be convinced to commit atrocities
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,792
And1: 23,311
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1489 » by nate33 » Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:40 pm

This is all related to the culture of the Middle East. Middle Easterners, on average, have always been a very tribal society with large clans internally strengthened by cousin marriage. This strengthens their allegiance to their fellow clansmen, but weakens their ties to the community at large. The end result is that these clans will heroically fight for their fellow clan members, but care very little about their fellow countrymen. Nationalism as a motivational force will not work there. The U.S. will never convince "good rebel" groups to fight for the good of Afghanistan.

The only way to promote order there is to back a ruthless dictator who isn't hostile to U.S. national interests and allow that ruthless dictator to savagely keep the unruly clans in line. This is what Putin is doing with Assad. If that strategy is deemed morally unacceptable (and understandably so), then the alternative is to pull out altogether. Let the people of the Middle East choose between autocratic rule or endless civil war. Those were always the only two choices anyway.

It's one reason that I do not greatly fear the emergence of a Caliphate. I am 100% certain that if it does actually happen, it will be short-lived. Whomever is in charge will seize the trapping of power to enhance the wealth and power of his clan, and the other clans will rebel once they realize there's nothing in it for them.
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 17,103
And1: 4,211
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1490 » by dobrojim » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:00 pm

emergence of a Caliphate is among the very least of the worries of actually rational people.
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

Those who are convinced of absurdities, can be convinced to commit atrocities
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,792
And1: 23,311
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1491 » by nate33 » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:23 pm

dobrojim wrote:emergence of a Caliphate is among the very least of the worries of actually rational people.

It's certainly a fear of the neocons and the Israelis. So do the people who write The Atlantic, and U.S. News and World Report and Vox. I suppose you are way more rational than all those people.
crackhed
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,403
And1: 66
Joined: Sep 27, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1492 » by crackhed » Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:49 am

regardless, ceding total control to the 'ruthless dictator' - with putin by his side - spells bad news in the long run.
we have to stay involved, we can do it now or we can do it later.

edit: unfortunately one thing all 3 parties have in common i.e. russia (putin), iran, syria (assad).. is a common hatred for us.
"I never apologize. I'm sorry but that's just the kind of man I am"
H. Simpson
crackhed
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,403
And1: 66
Joined: Sep 27, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1493 » by crackhed » Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:24 am

dckingsfan wrote:
crackhed wrote:
Induveca wrote:Looks like Obama decided to pass the buck on Afghanistan to the next administration. Wish he had done the same in Iraq.

agree. and with russia in the neighborhood now re-establishing a presence will be tricky.


Front page news on both NY Times and Wall Street Journal. Both basically said that he has learned his lesson from Iraq.

yes hopefully. kudos to the president for working hard to keep his word but the pragmatism is very welcome
"I never apologize. I'm sorry but that's just the kind of man I am"
H. Simpson
fishercob
RealGM
Posts: 13,922
And1: 1,571
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1494 » by fishercob » Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:48 pm

Weird political question for this group of political weirdos:

Would the United States have been better served nuking Afghanistan post 9/11?

Potential reasons in favor:

1) We would have killed Bin Laden and decimated al qaeda immediately
2) While the collateral damage of innocents would have been massive (I assume), it probably would have been less than that of the combined damage of the Afghan and Iraq wars; there's an imbedded assumption that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if we had nuked Afghanistan
3) Post 9/11, we could have gotten away with it politically in the world community
4) It would have been a huge display of American might and primacy that may have deterred future attacks. We nuked Japan 70 years ago and are now close allies, somehow.

Really just spitballing curiously. I don't know anything about nuclear weapons and how they have evolved since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"Some people have a way with words....some people....not have way."
— Steve Martin
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 17,103
And1: 4,211
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1495 » by dobrojim » Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:36 pm

I don't see how nuclear weapons can be defined as anything other than a terrorist device. They have
no military use.

As far as how they have evolved since 1945...the main thing is we now have our choice
of fission or fusion devices, the latter having several orders of magnitude greater destructive
power. A modern full size H bomb makes the bombs dropped on Japan seem like firecrackers
in comparison. Too horrible to even contemplate really. Unless you're a complete psycho.

To all the interventionistas, please explain why your current favorite military intervention
has any chance of working out differently than the last umpteen interventions our country
has attempted. We all know the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over
and expecting different results.
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

Those who are convinced of absurdities, can be convinced to commit atrocities
crackhed
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,403
And1: 66
Joined: Sep 27, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1496 » by crackhed » Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:30 pm

fishercob wrote:Weird political question for this group of political weirdos:

Would the United States have been better served nuking Afghanistan post 9/11?

Potential reasons in favor:

1) We would have killed Bin Laden and decimated al qaeda immediately
2) While the collateral damage of innocents would have been massive (I assume), it probably would have been less than that of the combined damage of the Afghan and Iraq wars; there's an imbedded assumption that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if we had nuked Afghanistan
3) Post 9/11, we could have gotten away with it politically in the world community
4) It would have been a huge display of American might and primacy that may have deterred future attacks. We nuked Japan 70 years ago and are now close allies, somehow.

Really just spitballing curiously. I don't know anything about nuclear weapons and how they have evolved since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

good question, would've been the more effective pre-emptive move, over invading iraq
"I never apologize. I'm sorry but that's just the kind of man I am"
H. Simpson
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,874
And1: 413
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1497 » by popper » Sat Oct 17, 2015 4:36 pm

Here's an interesting article on how much money could be raised by increasing taxes on the wealthy. I'm a conservative and I'm in favor of reasonable increases on the top 1% as well as elimination of home interest deductions on homes worth more than say $1.5 million as well as regular rates on hedge fund managers, etc................ but only if we cut spending in other areas of the govt. and only if we tax everyone to some minimal level.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.html?_r=0
fishercob
RealGM
Posts: 13,922
And1: 1,571
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1498 » by fishercob » Sat Oct 17, 2015 4:50 pm

dobrojim wrote:I don't see how nuclear weapons can be defined as anything other than a terrorist device. They have
no military use.



I don't understand the difference between the two. The goal is to kill/destroy, yes?
"Some people have a way with words....some people....not have way."
— Steve Martin
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,792
And1: 23,311
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1499 » by nate33 » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:08 pm

fishercob wrote:Weird political question for this group of political weirdos:

Would the United States have been better served nuking Afghanistan post 9/11?

Potential reasons in favor:

1) We would have killed Bin Laden and decimated al qaeda immediately
2) While the collateral damage of innocents would have been massive (I assume), it probably would have been less than that of the combined damage of the Afghan and Iraq wars; there's an imbedded assumption that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if we had nuked Afghanistan
3) Post 9/11, we could have gotten away with it politically in the world community
4) It would have been a huge display of American might and primacy that may have deterred future attacks. We nuked Japan 70 years ago and are now close allies, somehow.

Really just spitballing curiously. I don't know anything about nuclear weapons and how they have evolved since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I really don't think we could have gotten away with it in the world community. The problem is that Afghanistan isn't really a functioning state. The terrorists are operating within Afghanistan, but clearly not as part of the official government. The civilians who are unaffiliated with the terrorists truly are innocent and have no culpability. It's not like nuking of Japan where the civilians were at least indirectly assisting in the war effort by producing the military equipment and/or contributing to the economy that funded the war effort.

If we nuked Afghanistan, we'd be pariahs of the world community for a generation. The world would have turned to Russia and China to put an end to U.S. hegemony.
bsilver
Rookie
Posts: 1,110
And1: 600
Joined: Aug 09, 2005
Location: New Haven, CT

Re: Political Roundtable - Part VII 

Post#1500 » by bsilver » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:21 pm

dobrojim wrote:I don't see how nuclear weapons can be defined as anything other than a terrorist device. They have
no military use.

As far as how they have evolved since 1945...the main thing is we now have our choice
of fission or fusion devices, the latter having several orders of magnitude greater destructive
power. A modern full size H bomb makes the bombs dropped on Japan seem like firecrackers
in comparison. Too horrible to even contemplate really. Unless you're a complete psycho.

To all the interventionistas, please explain why your current favorite military intervention
has any chance of working out differently than the last umpteen interventions our country
has attempted. We all know the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over
and expecting different results.

The purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter an attack by an enemy that has nuclear weapons. aka, mutually assured destruction (MAD).
1) US and allies vs Russia
2) US and allies vs China
3) India vs Pakistan
Israel's enemies don't have them, so I assume they are for use when they feel that are in danger of losing a conventional war.
North Korea, for several possible reasons:
1) They are nuts
2) Feeling of national pride since they have nothing else of use
3) Deterrence for possible attack by US or South Korea
US and Russia have over 7000. Next highest is France with 300. Why 7000? Seems like a few hundred is enough to destroy the world.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics — quote popularized by Mark Twain.

Return to Washington Wizards