I've read that book. It's a pretty enlightening as an introduction to the true aims of the West, of which most democrats are mostly ignorant. But most people who understand that thesis don't defend further violence as a solution. Maybe you claim to be making a more subtle point, but you still seem to be defending the action.

That's a very superficial and dismissive reaction. The fact is that qualitative changes in warfare can threaten to ramp up the scale of killing. So someone gassed people in Syria. The gassing killed few people relative to other methods used in the conflict so far, so what is the big deal? The big deal there is essentially the same as with the MOAB in that with those methods the efficiency of killing goes way up and the discrimination in killing goes way down. It is true that if chemical weapons and MOABs were used more frequently they would dramatically accelerate the scale of the war and it's ugliest outcomes. The first use of these weapons is the event which, more than any other event, threatens the utter disaster of their further and more frequent use.

The MOAB is also Trump's way of signalling his willingness to use nuclear weapons. As when we dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan, we are now trying to scare Russia again. In that context, the bomb represents an intensification of the cold war. So hold onto your wallets while you sweat over the new arms race and the threat of instant incineration or nuclear fallout. The big deal with the MOAB is what it portends, not it's solitary use in this instance. It portends an acceleration of indiscriminate killing and a heightening of tensions between nuclear powers.

I understand your points but I just don't see the use of the MOAB as justifying the histrionics from some on the left.

And while I may disagree with your sentiment regarding the level of ramifications from using such a weapon, I can at least understand where you are coming from and I consider your position rational, as opposed to the aforementioned histrionics.

The arms race never went away. The military industrial complex and the war machine continues to churn as it always did. Trump's general deciding to use an old timey large conventional bomb changes much less in my eyes than it does in yours.

And to be clear, I am not "defending further violence", as I am pretty staunchly anti-war and violence. But that doesn't mean I cannot point out the ignorance of the jjshabados of the world.

If you want ISIS defeated maybe we should put pressure on the Sunni countries (some our friends and allies who also kill homosexuals) funding them and propping them up. But neither party has wanted that.

Well yea I agree. But like you say that is going to be difficult as you dont really know where their loyalties lie.

Saudi Arabia supports ISIS and we will build hotels there and supply fighter jets. Is hard to tell where our loyalties lie.

Clearly its with making money.

Well yeah, and cheep oil.

how in the **** is this not a !pizza! thread

Now there's a man with big and dare I say untrumpesque hands.

LOL. This is just hysterics.



Violence begets violence. Increasing use of conventional weapons, pitchforks or spear escalate conflict just the same. You can scale them however you want. Exponentially more people have been killed by gunfire in Afghanistan than by the MOAB. Your focus on it is simply histrionic.

This. And bombing these countries while we ban refugees and our President tries to ban all Muslims from the U.S. sends a terrible message. It really makes it look like we're at some kind of Holy War with Islam, rather than a surgical war against ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Taliban etc. But sadly that seems to be what many Trump supporters want. The situation is only going to get worse from here. We can only protest and make our voices heard as often as possible and not give Trump what he so desperately wants--a rise in approval ratings.

We agree the democrats are clueless, but they are not the left. The Rachel Maddow point of view (again, not leftist), an insidious brand of propaganda, is like a social cancer that turns people (like JJ) into partisan zombies who can't think. I just re-read what JJ has written ITT just to make sure there were no actual arguments there and yep, he is a confirmed zombie.

That said, I have an additional argument to make. What are we trying to achieve, ostensibly, with the bombing? I think the stated aims are pretty obvious in that we are supposedly trying to physically destroy capabilities of ISIS. However, history has shown that the more we use this sort of tactic, the more militant responses are organized against us by our targets. Al Quaeda was practically nothing pre-911. Now look at what it or its offshoot groups have become. They are truly global now. Militant Islam has reliably expanded in response each campaign of violence we have undertaken.

What are the implications of MOAB to this dynamic of us radicalizing the ME with our violence? It's all about perception. With respect to our objectives, it really doesn't matter what Rachel Maddow zombies moan about. What matters most is the perception of the MOAB use in the ME and other regions, like West Africa and Asian Pacific, the regions where militant anti-West movements are growing. If they perceive the use of MOAB as raising the stakes, or as a game changer, then that perception would solidify MOAB use as having definitely deepened and widened the conflict, the exact opposite of the ostensible aim.

The real increased lethality of the weapon above what has been used so far is important, but arguably not as important as the perception since the perception is what drives the response. History tells us this event will increase the ranks of Jihadists. By how much depends on how "hysterical" those in the anti-West hot spots get about it, for example those who were miles away but who could feel the ground shake. I know what my response would be to a foreign country making my ground shake. I bet if you were to be honest with yourself you would admit to having that same response- not submission.

It's very hard to imagine it getting any better, at least not for regular people. Those in power might have different expectations. The rise in approval rating will come with the retaliation. We might be starting an amplification of this cycle anew:

we elect **** stains for leaders -> **** stains start **** with foreigners -> we are attacked by targets of **** stains -> we rally around **** stains and give **** stains even more of our money AND our freedoms.

There is a way to break this cycle. We can stop electing **** stains by choosing not to hate each other, or at least setting aside the hate while pursuing a common goal.

Deuces, you're a mixed up man that doesn't have a clue.

Well you know enough not to dare try to make an argument to support that. I'll give you that much lol.

Deuces doesn't know about winning! But he is a nice guy.

From what I have seen the local inhabitants applauded it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-1...nistan/8445582

They probably tried to greet it with roses but were foiled by the air burst.

If I had to choose between the two I would probably choose to be a nice guy, depending on what you mean by that (definitely would choose according to a normal person's definition).

I've never noticed anyone who I thought was a winner looking at the world through that nice guy/loser / bad person/winner dichotomy as you apparently do. It's like you have an aggressive excuse for not winning. While there is a first for everything, and you could be winning while looking at things that way, I kinda doubt it. You come here and you don't really make arguments, as if you not even interested in the topics or can't form cogent thoughts. You seem to be here for twisted social reasons. That doesn't scream winner to me, nor does you're calling other people losers.

http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com

Edit: I enjoy Trump supporters arguing with Trump. It tickles my fancy. And I enjoy you arguing with me when your reads are so off.

I'd say he is not sending a terrible message. I'd hope at some point the message will be heard by the rest of the world. If you can't see evil or acknowledge evil, you can't fight evil.

I'm just happy people like you only represent a super small percentage of the liberal world. I'm glad I live in a part of the country that uses common sense when thinking.

You would prefer a thousand soldiers die?

Oh ya? You think we live in a democracy?

BTW. I never said Most of ISIS are suicide bombers. You people are in such a rush to respond in your negative and irresponseable way. Please make sure you understand what is written before commenting on it.

If I was being oppressed by fanatical Islamist's who burn people alive in cages , have fascist religious police and throw gays off buildings I would be quite ok with them being disposed off and the only downside was that my ground shook for a few seconds I would be quite ok with that.

Have you seen the reaction Syrian women had to being freed from ISIS?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7173671.html

Do you think think they would have traded a bit of ground shaking to get rid of ISIS?

Of course it is different if there is collateral damage which in this case there doesn't seem to be.