Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

America under President Trump

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

I'm sure the u.s. would have been able to stop guys armed with machetes.  Heck all you need is some citizens with nra cards.  When clinton gave the speech he kept dodging the term "genocide" because the u.n. laws mandate that they intervene in that case.  

 

So which other nations were willing to stop the "genocide" in Rwanda with military power ?    None.

Chretien went begging to Clinton because Canada didn't have 50 APCs available or the heavy lift transport to get them to Rwanda.

Instead, Gen. Dallaire had bad dreams and wrote a book instead.

In Kosovo (1999), NATO would only commit to an air campaign to force Milosevic back to peace talks, not stop "genocide" with boots on the ground.

Trump made the right move here, despite the heat he is taking.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Well that's just it...who will go in?  Out of the 5 permanent members in the u.n. council china and russia stand on one side of this while france and uk stand on the other.  Seems now the us is on the side of russia and china for some reason.  :mellow:

This is why we need to bring back the Commonwealth or do something like Black’s Union of Associated People.  We basically need to get a group of countries together who are willing to offer protection.  Canada can contribute.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Well that's just it...who will go in?  Out of the 5 permanent members in the u.n. council china and russia stand on one side of this while france and uk stand on the other.  Seems now the us is on the side of russia and china for some reason.  :mellow:

 

There is no side here....nobody is going in.    There is no compelling interest to do so, other than humanitarian aid.

Obama armed "free Syrians" to take out Assad, not to protect Kurds.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

If the Turks try to slaughter, that should be the end of their NATO membership among many other consequences.  

Again, that would be problematic for nato.  They would have to rely on Bulgaria, Greece and Italy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Again, that would be problematic for nato.  They would have to rely on Bulgaria, Greece and Italy.  

It doesn’t matter.  That’s why we need to get a group of countries together.  This sort of work used to be straightforward.  Protect/monitor an area and get assurances from Turkey.  Trump is threatening 50% tariffs on steel and other measures.   We’ll see if it’s enough.  Russia stayed in the Crimea despite sanctions.  Here we go, dictators having their way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

It doesn’t matter.  That’s why we need to get a group of countries together.  This sort of work used to be straightforward.  Protect/monitor an area and get assurances from Turkey.  Trump is threatening 50% tariffs on steel and other measures.   We’ll see if it’s enough.  Russia stayed in the Crimea despite sanctions.  Here we go, dictators having their way.  

Yeah I agree with you, but trump is rolling the dice with their lives.  Problem is if you roll craps, you lose.  And anyway, as they say, the house always wins.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

Yeah I agree with you, but trump is rolling the dice with their lives.  Problem is if you roll craps, you lose.  And anyway, as they say, the house always wins. 

 

Trump is responsible for U.S. troop's lives far more than the lives of Syrians, Kurds, and Turks hell bent on war.

Get all U.S. troops out of Syria...now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Trump is responsible for U.S. troop's lives far more than the lives of Syrians, Kurds, and Turks hell bent on war.

Get all U.S. troops out of Syria...now.

 

Then what are militaries for if not protecting vulnerable people from slaughter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Then what are militaries for if not protecting vulnerable people from slaughter?

Conquering.  

Same as genghis khan. 

Edited by Cannucklehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Then what are militaries for if not protecting vulnerable people from slaughter?

 

Obviously they are for power projection to achieve policy goals, with or without allied forces.    The result may or may not prevent slaughter or civilian casualities, and may in fact cause some ("collateral damage").

Even UN peacekeepers do not always protect people from slaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Conquering.  

See that’s where the hippie in me comes out.  Military should be about defence and peacekeeping/peacemaking, nothing more.   When a people become oppressed and government turns on them or another people, that’s when help is required.  It’s naive and idealistic but I don’t care.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Obviously they are for power projection to achieve policy goals, with or without allied forces.    The result may or may not prevent slaughter or civilian casualities, and may in fact cause some ("collateral damage").

Even UN peacekeepers do not always protect people from slaughter.

Oh I know.  Ask Dallaire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cannucklehead said:

Again, that would be problematic for nato.  They would have to rely on Bulgaria, Greece and Italy.  

Wrong. They would have to rely on Poland and Romania. Turkey ain't that important, they've become redundant, but that doesn't mean America should get in the middle of their pissing contest with the Kurds, that's still a dumb idea.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Wrong. They would have to rely on Poland and Romania. Turkey ain't that important, they've become redundant, but that doesn't mean America should get in the middle of their pissing contest with the Kurds, that's still a dumb idea.

I guess you dont know what a navy is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

I guess you dont know what a navy is.  

Yeah, this navy thing, what is that? I've definitely never heard of that before.....
:rolleyes:

Keep deflecting with non-sequiturs, lulz.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So which other nations were willing to stop the "genocide" in Rwanda with military power ?    None.

Chretien went begging to Clinton because Canada didn't have 50 APCs available or the heavy lift transport to get them to Rwanda.

Instead, Gen. Dallaire had bad dreams and wrote a book instead.

In Kosovo (1999), NATO would only commit to an air campaign to force Milosevic back to peace talks, not stop "genocide" with boots on the ground.

Trump made the right move here, despite the heat he is taking.

The Canadian Armed Forces were ordered to turn their back by Koffi Anan just like Trump ordered the US to turn its back on the Kurds.  Is it that hard for you to see the similiarity? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Even UN peacekeepers do not always protect people from slaughter.

That is the point. The fact they have not which has led to slaughter is precisely why what Trump did is morally contemptable. Yah I know you don't get it. Because other people fail, Trump has the right to be a failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Rue said:

That is the point. The fact they have not which has led to slaughter is precisely why what Trump did is morally contemptable. Yah I know you don't get it. Because other people fail, Trump has the right to be a failure. 

Why is it America's job to protect the Kurds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s everyone’s job. 

No it's not. It's the Kurds job. Last time Turkey tried to screw with them, it didn't go well for Turkey. The Kurds can handle it themselves, no need for other countries people to die for the Kurds, and if they want to, nothing is stopping them from going to help the Kurds. Stop recommending putting other people's lives in danger for a cause you would never fight for yourself.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

No it's not. It's the Kurds job.

That’s a pathetic attitude.  So basically might is right.  Armenians should have been able to defend themselves against the Turks; Jews should have been able to stand up to the Nazis. I don’t want to live in that kind of world.  Throw the F-35’s and all your other hardware in the garbage or give to responsible people.  At that point you’re no longer qualified to wield power.  What do you think military is for, running around in flashy gear and collecting a pension?  How effete.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s a pathetic attitude.  So basically might is right.  Armenians should have been able to defend themselves against the Turks; Jews should have been able to stand up to the Nazis. I don’t want to live in that kind of world.  Throw the F-35’s and all your other hardware in the garbage or give to responsible people.  At that point you’re no longer qualified to wield power.  

The more pathetic attitude is telling other people to put their lives on the line for a cause you refuse to fight for yourself. It's all good when other people's lives are on the line, then you can make reckless recommendations that get others killed with no personal consequences, and somehow think you have the moral high ground. Clown.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s a pathetic attitude.  So basically might is right.  Armenians should have been able to defend themselves against the Turks; Jews should have been able to stand up to the Nazis. I don’t want to live in that kind of world.  Throw the F-35’s and all your other hardware in the garbage or give to responsible people.  At that point you’re no longer qualified to wield power.  

Dont forget that america would not be america today if not for the french.  ^_^

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

The more pathetic attitude is telling other people to put their lives on the line for a cause you refuse to fight for yourself. It's all good when other people's lives are on the line, but not yours. Clown.

No you’re selling wimpiness.   If we don’t train and send our troops to defend the vulnerable, they’re just a useless and expensive ornament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...