Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
The Lounge / Re: The Funny/Stupid Pics Thread
« Last post by Zygarde on September 20, 2017, 11:52:13 pm »
...
12
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by Eiki-mun on September 20, 2017, 08:11:06 pm »
I'm just going to point out that even a war isn't a binary choice where one nation must be eradicated.

If USA or any NATO country is attacked NATO can just beat back the attacker and force them to accept peace (and probably some heavy sanctions starting with reducing their military.)

Granted that USA seems to think otherwise. Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed back to stone age. Afghan specifically tried to surrender but US military went with "LOL nope, we want more blood" and continued fighting the war long after one side was waving the white flag.

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/22/afghanistan-donald-trump-taliban-surrender-here-we-are/

Now, had the surrender been accepted would that have somehow been worse for USA? I mean it would have meant less deaths all around. Less dead US military personnel, less dead Taliban and a lot less dead civilians. They could have kept on hunting Osama even without a war going on. Less money would have been needed for the rebuilding phase for certain.

This is not some video game where the war isn't over until every enemy unit has been shot. In fact, if USA showing up on their doorstep is enough to stop someone from invading a US ally isn't that a good thing? "Oh wait, you were serious about that NATO stuff? Ooopsy daisy, we'll just go back home, ok?" Huzzah! Medals for everyone! Let the diplomats handle the remaining issues.

With all due respect, while true, all of this is really only tangential to the main argument here. First of all, if North Korea does attack the United States or its allies (and for the record, I don't think they would*), it's not going to be with a conventional strike. It's not going to be with a land invasion. I would say by far the two most likely scenarios that do involve North Korea initiating aggressive war would both be nuclear strikes, either on Japan or on US territory in the Pacific Islands (or god forbid, the West Coast.) In either of those two scenarios, there is no turning back. There is no trying to find a peace deal, and I would expect our nation to react to a nuclear strike in kind - especially since living in a prominent state capitol on the West Coast of the US, I'm a potential target (if a low probability one).

The other big factor here is deterrence. The principle of deterrence demands that we show North Korea, even if it's not true, that we are not only capable, but ready and willing to launch a massive retaliatory strike on North Korea if they choose to spark an open conflict - especially a nuclear conflict. Trump, for all his uncountable faults, is at least capable of sounding like he's ready and willing to retaliate (probably because he is). This sort of speech is exactly what you would want to say if you want to loom over North Korea and let them know that if they throw a bomb at a US country, their ass is grass. Which is, I believe (I hope), the main point of all this bluster.

*: Honestly, I should probably mention that I don't think North Korea will ever actually spark a war themselves. They know the position they're in, they're not stupid, and Kim Jong Un's biggest goal isn't to eradicate the US or Japan, it's to stay in power, and staying in power involves not stabbing sleeping dragons in the eye. I think North Korea's end goal here is just internationally recognized independence with the Kim family in control, and they're not about to risk that. However, the caveat we're discussing here is "if North Korea attacks the US or allies", and so I have to discuss it with that in mind - even if it's an outside possibility.
13
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by dpareja on September 20, 2017, 07:07:43 pm »
I really hope there are some sensible republicans that will oppose this bill, or things are going to become a lot worse in the states for healthcare. The United states has slowly been becoming a country for the rich ever since the 80s. Somethings gotta change.

I think Collins is (but then she voted against ACA repeal when Obama was still in office and would veto it anyway).

Paul is apparently against it because it doesn't cut enough.

Murkowski's waiting to find out what it would do to Alaska.
14
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by Id82 on September 20, 2017, 07:01:58 pm »
I really hope there are some sensible republicans that will oppose this bill, or things are going to become a lot worse in the states for healthcare. The United states has slowly been becoming a country for the rich ever since the 80s. Somethings gotta change.
15
The Lounge / Re: The Funny/Stupid Pics Thread
« Last post by dpareja on September 20, 2017, 07:01:06 pm »
16
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by dpareja on September 20, 2017, 06:27:06 pm »
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/09/20/6-big-lies-about-graham-cassidy-and-healthcare-reform-and-1-truth/#6104ad62a640

Bonus, Graham-Cassidy says FUCK YOU to states' rights!

Quote
Massachusetts was the state that prototyped the originally-Republican-developed ideas that became the basis for the ACA. And there's lots of talk that states need to experiment. But that's not really what the Republicans want. As John Kennedy of Louisiana said, "I want to get us to give guardrails to the states to say, 'You cannot use these moneys to set up a state-run single-payer system.'” I don’t believe in it. I think it’s a mistake."
17
Politics and Government / Re: Richard Spencer's pal Jorjani wants concentration camps
« Last post by ironbite on September 20, 2017, 06:16:39 pm »
Shut up Lana.
18
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by Askold on September 20, 2017, 06:02:09 pm »
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.

If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.

Ah yes, the ever fun argument tactic of "ignore the general point of the reply and focus on the wording of the final line".

Direct question: do you think the United States has an obligation to retaliate if it is attacked, especially if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon? Yes or no.
I'm just going to point out that even a war isn't a binary choice where one nation must be eradicated.

If USA or any NATO country is attacked NATO can just beat back the attacker and force them to accept peace (and probably some heavy sanctions starting with reducing their military.)

Granted that USA seems to think otherwise. Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed back to stone age. Afghan specifically tried to surrender but US military went with "LOL nope, we want more blood" and continued fighting the war long after one side was waving the white flag.

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/22/afghanistan-donald-trump-taliban-surrender-here-we-are/

Now, had the surrended been accepted would that have somehow been worse for USA? I mean it would have meant less deaths all around. Less dead US military personnel, less dead Taliban and a lot less dead civilians. They could have kept on hunting Osama even without a war going on. Less money would have been needed for the rebuilding phase for certain.

This is not some video game where the war isn't over until every enemy unit has been shot. In fact, if USA showing up on their doorstep is enough to stop someone from invading a US ally isn't that a good thing? "Oh wait, you were serious about that NATO stuff? Ooopsy daisy, we'll just go back home, ok?" Huzzah! Medals for everyone! Let the diplomats handle the remaining issues.
19
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by Eiki-mun on September 20, 2017, 05:43:26 pm »
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.

If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.

Ah yes, the ever fun argument tactic of "ignore the general point of the reply and focus on the wording of the final line".

Direct question: do you think the United States has an obligation to retaliate if it is attacked, especially if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon? Yes or no.
20
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by dpareja on September 20, 2017, 05:02:22 pm »
http://americablog.com/2017/09/graham-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-get-2-minutes-debate.html

So, Graham-Cassidy, which will pretty much destroy the US health care system (or rather take it from the pile of rubble it currently is and turn it into little specks), might get 2 minutes of debate. If necessary. It's slated for all of 90 seconds.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10