The Next President of the United States: III

[UtahLama]

@Bismark

You’re full of shit. The IDF goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent and mitigate civilian causalities. Collateral damage is inevitable, of course, but it’s stategically, tactically, ethically, and legally necessary for states to minimize it. The American and Israeli defense and intelligence communities certainly recognize this.

Jesus Christ on a cracker…you really think that if the IDF has a bead on a terrorist cell, they give two wet fucks if they kill their civilian shields…those fuckers are warriors, literally fighting for their country’s very existence.

I have been to Israel (have you?..reading about those crazy JEWZ in a book doesn’t count), I have talked to people while I was there…literally ZERO fucks are given if somebody on the other side of the wall bites it. They know that this conflict is older than dirt, and is never going away.

Sorry to give you the bad news, clearly your news briefings and wire stories written by sound bites did not give you the full picture.

Strange.

Oh, and if you are going to be throwing names around…I don’t appreciate it. You can e-mail me if you would like to get personal and we can straighten it out.

[UtahLama]

@anon50325502

I’m not advocating this posture.

Not saying you were. But if we are not going to do everything possible to win, it is going to be another Vietnam. Plain and simple.

Far to easy for a person to act like a non-combatant…and then pull a gun as soon as you are out of site. No easy answer other than scorched earth, and that is not a modern option.

[anon50325502]

I tend to think the opposite. I think we’ll need a much more finessed campaign to ultimately win. That’s a different topic, though.

[anon50325502]

For the record, his mouthiness doesn’t bother me. He could drop the F bomb every other word and I wouldn’t care. My concern is that his hyperbole and past liberal stances will become policy.

If this was my neighbor I wouldn’t care, but we’re talking about the potential next President of the United States and all that entails. That’s what gives me pause.

I’d gladly get a beer with him, though. I don’t hate the guy, just the candidate.

Edited.

[UtahLama]

@anon50325502

For the record, his mouthiness doesn’t bother me. He could drop the F bomb every other word and I wouldn’t care. My concern is that his hyperbole and past liberal stances will become policy.

If this was my neighbor I wouldn’t care, but we’re talking about the potential next President of the United States and all that entails. That’s what gives me pause.

I’d gladly get a beer with him, though. I don’t hate the guy, just the candidate.

Edited.

Curious for your thoughts on why you, SMH and others think that everything that Trump is saying on the campaign trail is going to actually happen.

Obama promised the moon and stars in 08’ (part of why I voted for him, his transparency promises) and literally did nothing close to what the said he would do.

Does that not apply to Trump promises as well? Campaign rhetoric, nothing more?

No snark, honestly curious.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Why not? Dresden had no military value. And you should know that.

Not one German tank, Luftwaffe plane, infantry regiment, personnel carrier, etc. was targeted. It was the wholesale slaughter of civilians. For effect. For the devastating psychological effect.

Know your history, TB, if you want to contest me on this forum, sir.
[/quote]

Thanks for the chuckle.

When a country’s war machine is driven by industrial capacity and output, taking out that capacity is taking out a legitimate military aaset. Dresden was, as you concede in a later post, an industrial and logistical asset. Aggressive? Sure. But not in the same universe as deliberately hunting down the families of terrorists.

[Bismark]

Trump is uniquely unqualified to be commander and diplomat in chief. Unambiguously calling for blatant war crimes to be committed is quite different than vowing to make government policy more transparent.

[anon50325502]

@UtahLama

@anon50325502

For the record, his mouthiness doesn’t bother me. He could drop the F bomb every other word and I wouldn’t care. My concern is that his hyperbole and past liberal stances will become policy.

If this was my neighbor I wouldn’t care, but we’re talking about the potential next President of the United States and all that entails. That’s what gives me pause.

I’d gladly get a beer with him, though. I don’t hate the guy, just the candidate.

Edited.

Curious for your thoughts on why you, SMH and others think that everything that Trump is saying on the campaign trail is going to actually happen.

Obama promised the moon and stars in 08’ (part of why I voted for him, his transparency promises) and literally did nothing close to what the said he would do.

Does that not apply to Trump promises as well? Campaign rhetoric, nothing more?

No snark, honestly curious.

I can’t speak for the others, but I actually don’t think Trump will do almost anything he says he will do once in office.

I don’t think he’ll slap tariffs on China, Japan, or Mexico. I don’t believe he’ll build a wall (maybe he’ll build some or extend what we have) and I don’t believe Mexico will pay for it. I don’t believe he’ll reform the tax code. Etc. Etc…

I wrote a while back that I believe Trump will act like a moderate Democrat if he gets elected. I think Republicans are in danger of losing the house and if that happens a more liberal agenda will pass during the Trump Presidency.

In my opinion, this will destroy the Republican party. Conservatism, libertarianism, and classic liberalism will take a back seat to progressivism as the American electorate, which is generally low information, will blame the Republicans for continued stagnation giving the Presidency back to a Democrat like Elizabeth Warren (shudder).

That has been my stance since Trump’s Presidency became a real possibility. He says one thing to get elected, will act completely opposite (act the way his history indicates), and we will be Europe in about 10 years. Single-payer, “free” education, and 50+% tax rates.

Those are the intermediate / long term consequences as I see them. I would love to be wrong, but to a lesser degree, it is what we saw with GWB.

[zeb1]

@anon50325502

Well, at least, you have a source for your nonsense. Now, was that that hard? [/quote]

It’s hard for you to keep up I know. But the post in question was answering your question about air support only.

Let me give it to you one more time:

“The drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the protracted, seven-hour battle at the US Consulate. Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships were also available at nearby bases, military sources told CBS.”

The above is what you doubted. It has been answered.

[quote]zeb1:
General: ‘We may have been able to’ save Benghazi victims, but State Department never asked for help"

Is English not your first language? Brigadier General Robert Lovell did not say we could have helped. He said the State Department didn’t ask for help and that we should of at least tried. I agree with the should of tried part, but that doesn’t make Leon Panetta or HRC a liar.[/quote]

My gosh you are dumber than originally suspected. Let me do this in a way I taught my children when they were young (younger than you are right now):

1. The State Department NOT asking for help means that Hillary Clinton (your new hero because you hate Trump) dropped the ball. That is the gist of my argument.

2. This particular post had nothing to do with Leon Panetta.

Now try really hard to separate the two issues if you want to move forward because they are two completely different topics and only merge later on. Clear?

[quote]zeb1:
The is all about protecting Hillary. And on T Nation sometimes the right also wants to protect Hillary from war crimes because…they don’t like Donald Trump–LOL morons.

War crimes, come off it. I’m certainly not protecting Hillary Clinton. [/quote]

You are attempting to create an argument that she was blameless regarding the Benghazi incident, are you not? “She had no air power…prove that she did” I paraphrased but essentially those are your words. Are those words not in effect trying to give Hillary a free pass? what could she have done poor thing everyone is picking on her. Yes…that is your position. My gosh I have to explain your own position to you!

[quote]zeb1:
Benghazi did not have to turn out the way it did as you can see.

You’re incredible. A NY Post article citing an anonymous source and conjecture. That’s all you have.

The opinion of a Brigadier General Robert Lovell a former Deputy Director for Intelligence for the U.S. African Command. And based on his vast military experience. Reread his comments. If you don’t like what he said I suggest you give him a call and debate him over the phone I’m sure he has nothing better to do than to speak to you. Explain to him that you are really young and not very well read but for some reason know just about every freaking thing in the world.

He’ll talk to you for certain then

[Bismark]

I took a few classes at the University of Haifa. I’m acquainted with American soldiers that have trained alongside the IDF. I can assure you that Israeli national security practitioners and scholars carry very much about preventing and mitigating collateral damage. There’s a deep respect for the need to adhere to the laws of war, as Israelis understand that they are already under a microscope on the international stage. To suggest that the IDF doesn’t give a shit about civilian casualties is inaccuarate at best and plays into the hands of anti-Israel propagandists at worst.

[zeb1]

@anon50325502

In my opinion, this will destroy the Republican party. Conservatism, libertarianism, and classic liberalism will take a back seat to progressivism as the American electorate, which is generally low information, will blame the Republicans for continued stagnation giving the Presidency back to a Democrat like Elizabeth Warren (shudder).[/quote]

And the world will end as we know it. Ha, wow you could not be further from the truth. Political fighting has been going on in both parties for decades and no question you know thi…oh wait no you don’t. Anyway both parties are still there regardless of the in fighting that has happened.

[quote]That has been my stance since Trump’s Presidency became a real possibility. He says one thing to get elected, will act completely opposite (act the way his history indicates), and we will be Europe in about 10 years. Single-payer, “free” education, and 50+% tax rates.

Yes, and Hillary Clinton the person you are going to help elect by not voting is going to do what? Ah…

[UtahLama]

@Bismark

I can assure you that Israeli national security practitioners and scholars carry very much about preventing and mitigating collateral damage. There’s a deep respect for the need to adhere to the laws of war, as Israelis understand that they are already under a microscope on the international stage. To suggest that the IDF doesn’t give a shit about civilian casualties is inaccuarate at best and plays into the hands of anti-Israel propagandists at worst.

Sweet jeebus…“you took a few classes” and you are "acquainted"with american soldiers. Friends? Neighbors perhaps? “Israeli practitioners and scholars”? LOL This is what gives you the high ground to label somebody with a different opinion “full of shit”? Just so much arrogance and smarm oozing through your posts.

You act as if what comes out of people’s mouths that are similar to you, is what the actual commanders in the field, and the civilians who are in danger every day of suicide bombers think.

It’s a war, a neverending war that Israel is not about to lose…they do right almost everything we do wrong, simple because every neighbor they have would just assume they get pushed into the sea.

[UtahLama]

@anon50325502

I can’t speak for the others, but I actually don’t think Trump will do almost anything he says he will do once in office.

I don’t think he’ll slap tariffs on China, Japan, or Mexico. I don’t believe he’ll build a wall (maybe he’ll build some or extend what we have) and I don’t believe Mexico will pay for it. I don’t believe he’ll reform the tax code. Etc. Etc…

I wrote a while back that I believe Trump will act like a moderate Democrat if he gets elected. I think Republicans are in danger of losing the house and if that happens a more liberal agenda will pass during the Trump Presidency.

That has been my stance since Trump’s Presidency became a real possibility. He says one thing to get elected, will act completely opposite

I don’t have a single disagreement with any of this. Well put.

[anon50325502]

@zeb1

The above is what you doubted. It has been answered.

Not satisfactorily by any stretch of the imagination. An anonymous military source vs. The Secretary of Defense. Sorry, nope…

@zeb1

The State Department NOT asking for help means that Hillary Clinton (your new hero because you hate Trump) dropped the ball. That is the gist of my argument.

1. That was never what we were discussing. Nice try, though.

2. She isn’t my hero no matter how hard you push this nonsense.

3. If your argument was that she dropped the ball maybe you should of written that.

@zeb1

You are attempting to create an argument that she was blameless regarding the Benghazi incident, are you not?

No. This isn’t hard Zeb. There was no air support readily available that could have made an impact on the attack in Benghazi per Leon Panetta, period. You have not proven otherwise.

@zeb1

“She had no air power…prove that she did” I paraphrased but essentially those are your words.

“We” had no air power close enough to take action, per Penetta.

@zeb1

Are those words not in effect trying to give Hillary a free pass?

No, they aren’t. You might want to re-read my very first post on the matter today,.

@zeb1

Yes…that is your position. My gosh I have to explain your own position to you!

You’re a fucking idiot.

@zeb1

he opinion of a Brigadier General Robert Lovell a former Deputy Director for Intelligence for the U.S. African Command. And based on his vast military experience. Reread his comments. If you don’t like what he said I suggest you give him a call and debate him over the phone I’m sure he has nothing better to do than to speak to you. Explain to him that you are really young and not very well read but for some reason know just about every freaking thing in the world.

He literally said that we “may” have been able to help. Not that we couldhave helped. Jesus, you can’t be this fucking retarded.

[anon50325502]

You’re an idiot, fuck off.

[treco]

So how should the action be carried against a malevolent force that has no manufacturing base and indeed is using the civilian population as its major logistical asset?

[SkyzykS]

Just curious, but when you say acquainted, to you mean listened to lectures from, hung out and had beers with, or acquainted like two of my brothers who spent time in Israel undertaking joint training and operations?
There are different levels of acquaintance.

[zeb1]

@anon50325502

zeb1:
The above is what you doubted. It has been answered.

Not satisfactorily by any stretch of the imagination. An anonymous military source vs. The Secretary of Defense. Sorry, nope…[/quote]

Your answer is the equivalent of a child saying “Nu uh” and shaking his head furiously.

I quoted Brigadier General Robert Lovell a former Deputy Director for Intelligence for the U.S. African Command. That is NOT an anonymous source.
Remember now the topic is “was there sufficient force within range to help the men at Benghazi.”

That’s what YOU wanted ME to show you. R E M E M B E R?

( like a dog I have to keep pulling on your leash to keep you focused).

[quote]zeb1:
The State Department NOT asking for help means that Hillary Clinton (your new hero because you hate Trump) dropped the ball. That is the gist of my argument.

She isn’t my hero no matter how hard you push this nonsense.[/quote]

Yes, remember: Trump=bad Hillary=good in your little black and white mind. No? Then why try so hard to protect her? You wanted proof that there was help within reach I gave you evidence that there was. You didn’t want Hillary looking bad. But…she does look bad. Now what?

If your argument was that she dropped the ball maybe you should of written that.

I did… try harder to keep up.

[quote]zeb1:
You are attempting to create an argument that she was blameless regarding the Benghazi incident, are you not?

No. This isn’t hard Zeb. There was no air support readily available that could have made an impact on the attack in Benghazi per Leon Panetta, period. You have not proven otherwise.[/quote]

I sure did Jun…oh I’m not calling you that anymore. I am merely calling you dumb. Anyway I certainly did. One more time:

"The drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the protracted, seven-hour battle at the US Consulate. Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships were also available at nearby bases, military sources told CBS.“able at nearby bases, military sources told CBS.”

No one with any intelligence even questions that there was air support in the vicinity.

I wonder what’s wrong with you and then I realize…you’re just not smart.

[quote]zeb1:
“She had no air power…prove that she did” I paraphrased but essentially those are your words.

“We” had no air power close enough to take action, per Penetta. [/quote]

And that is why I am question Panetta’s comment. As I said earlier he owes the Clintons for his multiple high level government jobs. It was payback time and he came through. Also, he was Secretary of Defense and how do you think it looks for him to have that happen on his watch and no action taken? Again, you need to read and UNDERSTAND history for any of this to make sense.

[quote]zeb1:
Yes…that is your position. My gosh I have to explain your own position to you!

You’re a fucking idiot.[/quote]

Yet, you are the one who is incapable of not only launching a coherent argument but not even being able to remember who said what five minutes after it is posted.

[quote]zeb1:
he opinion of a Brigadier General Robert Lovell a former Deputy Director for Intelligence for the U.S. African Command. And based on his vast military experience. Reread his comments. If you don’t like what he said I suggest you give him a call and debate him over the phone I’m sure he has nothing better to do than to speak to you. Explain to him that you are really young and not very well read but for some reason know just about every freaking thing in the world.

He literally said that we “may” have been able to help. Not that we could have helped. Jesus, you can’t be this fucking retarded.

Of course he said “may” how do you expect him or any sane military leader to couch the phrase? “Yesereeee we could have marched in their and kicked ass” No you see they only talk like that in the military movies that you watch and then get confused with real life.

There is no guarantee regarding anything especially militarily. But when there is no call for help then we never know for CERTAIN.

Why do I spend my time educating you? Why? My gosh I feel like putting a bill in the mail.

[zeb1]

@anon50325502

You’re an idiot, fuck off.

LOL…good argument.

But, with you it’s only a matter of time before your debate tactics go just a bit higher than say a monkey.