- September 5th, 2014, 10:57 am
#460851
If you are the president what action do you take on these two dynamic situations.
Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke
bballfan84 wrote:If you are the president what action do you take on these two dynamic situations.With Russia, I would have landed AF1 at Kiev International. And as I was shaking hands with their PM, with cameras flashing and rolling, have had several C-17's landing in the background. My first statement would be. 'Here is the stuff you wanted. Since I was in the area I figured I'd go ahead and drop it off myself, just so I know you got it. Hers my cel number, just give me a call if you need anything else. Well, gotta go. I have a Tee Time at St Andrews, and you know how hard those are to get.just tell my guys where you want them to put the stuff. And I'm sure they wouldn't turn down a couple of cases of Ukraine's best Vodka."
bluejacket wrote:We should definitely not continue gunrunning. If anyone in the media put any effort into their jobs, they would uncover a scandal 100x bigger than Iran-Contra.
BJWilliams wrote:I have a more detailed answer but basically (and I am in the minority here) but I would give Putin 48 hours to clear out then send inspectors in with soldiers accompanying them, and if they attacked them, blow them off the face of the earth (after congressional approval of course)What type of inspectors? Didn't really work in Iraq or Korea
Purple Haize wrote:Do you have a source for the US arming ISIS? I know there was scuttlebutt about the Benghazi Annex being a way station for arming the Syrian rebels but ISIS. In fact the criticism has been that we waited too late into the conflict to even thinking about arming the Syrian rebels. Had we acted sooner, we could have supported more moderate Syrian rebels and denied ISIS a recruiting ground.Yes. There are other credible articles, but this is one off the top of my head. If you would like to see more, let me know and I'll pass them along. http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery ... ning-them/ I have seen nothing recently to suggest that we are continuing to directly arm and/or train IS or people who are likely to join IS (either with our "advisors" or through other intermediaries who we deal with), but there are other problems because we continue arming the Syrian rebels. One problem is that the arms that the US is still sending to Syria are now flowing into Iraq, Kurdistan, and Syria. Often times, IS is purchasing weapons and ammunition from the poorer Syrian "rebel" factions that we are funding in addition to the weapons that they have captured or already purchased. Once our weapons arrive in Syria, we have no control over which group they remain with. Our weapons are not their sole source of weapons and arms (many of their supplies are coming from Turkey), but our flow of weapons in the region should be stopped.
Purple Haize wrote:As for Poland not needing the missle shield, you might wanna check with the Poles about that. In fact, the US was planning on putting a system in place in Poland and Czechoslovakia under the W administration, but it was cancelled under the current Admin. Granted, it was theoretically being placed there to counter annIranian threat, I'm sure those 2 countries had their eyes looking East as well.I am sympathetic with the Poles and understand their concerns. Events 75 years ago this very week caused a national tragedy in their nation that taught them hard lessons in international diplomacy. But they are in a much stronger place than they were in 1939 through the creation of NATO. It is understandable that they need reassurances, but they need to understand that NATO will protect them against any aggression. Ukraine does not have those guarantees, which is one of the reasons why Russia is more brazen in their actions in that nation.
Purple Haize wrote:As for the Rapid reaction force, it could be used as trip wire or something to buy time,but I seriously doubt its effectiveness.We have 28,500 military personnel in the United States Forces Korea, a comparable but far stronger force to what this new NATO group would ever be. They are not even a speed bump if North Korea ever decides to invade South Korea again. This force in eastern Europe will be the exact same thing except far weaker because NATO troop rotations will destroy unit cohesion every six months and the force will be asked have to cover a military front of at least 2000 kilometers in distance (Tallinn, Estonia to Istanbul, Turkey is around 2069 kilometers). In either case, the troops will not buy time or trip any wires. Instead, almost all of them will be killed, wounded, or captured if they are unfortunate enough to run into the enemy.
BuryYourDuke wrote:This whole thread...Translation - "no US Troops on foreign soil"
BuryYourDuke wrote:I prefer the "peace through peace" option. Also known as the "peace through minding your own business" option, or the "how about we actually try to understand the people we are fighting" option. Additionally, see the "we don't go bankrupt" option.I prefer the Peace through Strength option.
Now that we got that out of the way...commence with bombing the world for guys.
BuryYourDuke wrote:I prefer the "peace through peace" option. Also known as the "peace through minding your own business" option, or the "how about we actually try to understand the people we are fighting" option. Additionally, see the "we don't go bankrupt" option.I know this is on the micro-scale, but at what point do you draw the line in when it's right to intervene in another's affairs? I get it... you're a libertarian and think we should only use force when it's a direct threat against our own soil. But what about in your own personal life? Do you really not think that there are people out there who are more than willing (and plenty able) to threaten your own life without you provoking them? What about the life of a friend? Would you be fine intervening in a scuffle if you saw your friend get attacked on the street, or would you apply your libertarian logic to that situation as well?
Now that we got that out of the way...commence with bombing the world for guys.
SuperJon wrote:You cannot and will not stop radical religious battles, no matter what you try. It's been going on since the beginning of time.There are a lot of things that have been going on since the beginning of time, such as violent crime. You're not an advocate of getting rid of self-defense laws and police forces are you?
SuperJon wrote:No I'm not. But I'm an advocate of knowing the causes of things and realizing the big picture instead of just bombing the crap out of everything in a giant, global, pissing contest.You can know the cause of things and the big picture and still bomb the crap out of them!
bballfan84 wrote:isis killed two americans what bigger picture do you needwith that logic there are a lot of countries killing American missionaries, should we go and bomb those groups too? I think it is absolutely terrible and incredibly sad but this logic is awful.
bballfan84 wrote:isis killed two americans what bigger picture do you needTwo lives are not worth thousands.
BuryYourDuke wrote:This whole thread...Care to give your solution to these two problems?