Anatta was right - NYT confirms Deep State White House coup attempt is real

[Darth Omar]

interventionism is the key.
Obama ran on none of that, and got sucked into Libya nonetheless, and the region is paying the price.

GWOT / Long War / anti-terrorist suppression, is much different then interventionism

Sucked into, is the key concept. Even democrats concede there’s an element in government that is addicted to regime change. Obama wasn’t a strong enough leader to fend them off and the results sucked.

Trump only stayed in Afghan reluctantly—and I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t pull out before the end of his first term.

 

[Rune]

By ‘no war on the horizon’ I meant no new wars or talks of interventions—on Trump’s part. ‘Horizon’ should have been a clue about what I meant, but yeah lol. He’s no doubt add odds with people in government in that regard but democrats can’t even support him on that.

Of course, we are still in Afghanistan and I even alluded to it in my post. The main thrust was that Trump shows no signs of being an interventionist.

Which is something everyone but Bill Kristol should cheer about.

I guess you forgot about North Korea lol.

 

[dukkha]

Question; when a despot invades a neighboring member state of the UN, should we do nothing? You keep bloviating about non-interventionism which is historically naive and stupid. We tried that in WWI, WWII and Korea and it didn't work out very well.

Am I comprehending your argument correctly; because it is difficult to follow your narrative here.

World wars are obvious different. Nobody had a problem with the Gulf war because it was bought in across nations
and because it was an armored incursion into Kuwaiit. We went in and pushed Saddam out. we left
There was no nation building like Iraq/Afghanistan


Compare that to libya -we got in the middle of their civil war, we took sides
and as Powell says "you break it you own it" - Iraq was nation building a tribal sectarian society.
even the little we did in Syria (civil war) backfired.

a good rule of thumb is stay out of foreign civil wars

 

[Rune]

Sucked into, is the key concept. Even democrats concede there’s an element in government that is addicted to regime change. Obama wasn’t a strong enough leader to fend them off and the results sucked.

Trump only stayed in Afghan reluctantly—and I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t pull out before the end of his first term.

Trump just ramped up Afganistan, moron.

We will never leave there, like the Korean Penisula,
Japan, Germany or an other of our conflicts.

 

[dukkha]

Sucked into, is the key concept. Even democrats concede there’s an element in government that is addicted to regime change. Obama wasn’t a strong enough leader to fend them off and the results sucked.

Trump only stayed in Afghan reluctantly—and I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t pull out before the end of his first term.

Afghanistan is a holding pattern, It's "unwinnable" - but it does suppress terrorism
which is what we should have done from the beginning,but since we put all this blood and treasure into nationbuilding - im fine with using it a a counter-terrorism strategy.

Beware the Bill Kristol neocons, they are out of favor and they desperately want back in. Max Boot is a fascist, etc.

 

[dukkha]

Trump just ramped up Afganistan, moron.

We will never leave there, like the Korean Penisula,
Japan, Germany or an other of our conflicts.

we will eventually leave Afgh.
Unlike Korea and Japan/Germany the Afghan government is not long term viable. there is nothing to stabilize

Plus Afgh is the "graveyard of the empires" it rejects any attempt at pacification

 

[Rune]

World wars are obvious different. Nobody had a problem with the Gulf war because it was bought in across nations
and because it was an armored incursion into Kuwaiit. We went in and pushed Saddam out. we left
There was no nation building like Iraq/Afghanistan


Compare that to libya -we got in the middle of their civil war, we took sides
and as Powell says "you break it you own it" - Iraq was nation building a tribal sectarian society.
even the little we did in Syria (civil war) backfired.

a good rule of thumb is stay out of foreign civil wars

You are almost there.
A good rule of thumb is to stay out of all wars.

 

[dukkha]

I guess you forgot about North Korea lol.

not even a red herring .

 

[Rune]

we will eventually leave Afgh.
Unlike Korea and Japan/Germany the Afghan government is not long term viable. there is nothing to stabilize

Plus Afgh is the "graveyard of the empires" it rejects any attempt at pacification

Yes, the USSR died there.
Only neocon stupidity got us there.

But no, we will not leave.
The MIC does not want to leave.
No matter what you think.

 

[Rune]

not even a red herring .

Damn. You are stupid.

 

[dukkha]

You are almost there.
A good rule of thumb is to stay out of all wars.

If China were to go up against Japan? No we would have to go in.
If China went into Taiwan? we'd probably get sucked in.

Those are large stable states, and we have specific security guarantees.
it is the break out wars that are over disputed lands, or insane interventionism like Libya
where we went in on cell phone intelligence that need to stop

 

[dukkha]

Yes, the USSR died there.
Only neocon stupidity got us there.

But no, we will not leave.
The MIC does not want to leave.
No matter what you think.

we'll leave when Kabul falls. until then we use it as a giant anti-terrorism suppression activity

 

[Darth Omar]

I guess you forgot about North Korea lol.

Trump bomb them while I wasn’t looking lol?

 

[Truth Detector]

World wars are obvious different. Nobody had a problem with the Gulf war because it was bought in across nations
and because it was an armored incursion into Kuwaiit. We went in and pushed Saddam out. we left
There was no nation building like Iraq/Afghanistan

World Wars began with small conflicts and peaceful takeovers.

Apparently liberals and libertarians had HUGE issues with the Gulf Wars aftermath and trying to force Saddam to comply with inspections and his agreement post Gulf War.

I'll ask again; where do we draw the line in the sand when it comes to despots, terrorists and dictators and stopping them? Do we huddle behind our borders and hope for the best? Wait until thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands die and become refugees? Or do we effectively take them out and prevent more deaths and subsequent refugee problems.

Syria comes to mind; the UN takes a stand on their use of chemical weapons and all we do is drop some ineffective bombs and rely on Russian guarantees of compliance only to have them continue to use chemical weapons. Should we not rise to the cause and jointly take out the Assad regime? Or just sit on our hands and wait for more deaths and refugees, which also leads to more terrorism.

Compare that to libya -we got in the middle of their civil war, we took sides
and as Powell says "you break it you own it" - Iraq was nation building a tribal sectarian society.

And yet, as a tribal sectarian society it was a nation under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam. Were they better off with a brutal dictator who murdered opponents and invaded neighboring nations at great cost to national treasure and lives?

even the little we did in Syria (civil war) backfired.

I agree....see above.

a good rule of thumb is stay out of foreign civil wars

So if a democracy, or even a peaceful Kingdom, is under assault by a brutal communist leader or terrorist led ISIS type cabal, leave it alone and not get involved? How does that make anything better?

 

[Truth Detector]

Trump just ramped up Afganistan, moron.

We will never leave there, like the Korean Penisula,
Japan, Germany or an other of our conflicts.

Why should we leave nations that need our help to prevent the likes of another Saddam or ISIS?

 

[Truth Detector]

we will eventually leave Afgh.
Unlike Korea and Japan/Germany the Afghan government is not long term viable. there is nothing to stabilize

Plus Afgh is the "graveyard of the empires" it rejects any attempt at pacification

America is not an empire. HUGE difference.

 

[Truth Detector]

You are almost there.
A good rule of thumb is to stay out of all wars.

That isn't a good rule; it is naive and ignorant. Yeah dumbfuck, we should have stayed out of WWII. Moron.

 

[floridafan]

Moving off the moronic stock market implosion meme I see. Dumbfuck. Grow a brain.

We seem to have a trade deficit growing larger and larger. and a stock market 1000 points under what it was in January. Very impressive.

 

[Rune]

That isn't a good rule; it is naive and ignorant. Yeah dumbfuck, we should have stayed out of WWII. Moron.

I said rule of thumb, cockbreath, not Commandment.

Which c country did we prevent Saddam from invading?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

This has zero to do with Congress and everything to do with the weapons inspectors who were on site in 2003. That said that they needed just a short time to finish their investigation, but were sure that there were no WMD' sin Iraq. Bush disregarded their report, had them withdrawn, and invaded anyway.
Some time later, I heard a radio interview with one of these inspectors, and he said that before they even entered Iraq, they were sure that there were no WMD's. Thats because there were a whole lot of chemicals that Saddam would have had to order to help produce these weapons, and there was no evidence that they had been ordered.

Like all you lefties that were against the Iraq war you ignore the pre-war evidence and soley rely on after the fact data.