Mattis for President

[T.Lex]

This is me not wading into the "definition of a neocon" argument.

And, Tombs, I think your position and mine are very close together - our foreign policy should be principled. Not just in terms of "doing what's right for America" but doing what's right based on American values.

But this caught my attention....

Keeping other super powers in check keeps us safe, involving ourselves in civil wars among various terrorist outfits makes us less safe.

This was the thinking pre-9/11. Nothing bad can happen to us in Afghanistan. We helped the mujahadeen against the Sovs, but then bailed without any effort to build relations with them (leaving that to Pakistan).

We need to be smart and careful, learn the right lessons. Not every ****hole country civil war is going to need attention. But our surveillance and intelligence agencies need to be on top of their game to help tell the difference.

 

[BugI02]

So your stance is to use emotional reasoning to:
Expand the state
Expand taxes
Spend ourselves into a massive deficit trying to sway civil wars in foreign countries because of misguided altruism
Ignore people at home

And in turn, call other people emotional and hysteric who oppose those things? Wow

Not calling for isolationism, military action should be taken to defend countries who actually need it, for instance when Russia annexed Ukraine, and now with China trying to dominate Hong Kong. You know, actually standing up as a super power to other super powers instead of grinding away our resources on what is essentially a complete loss. Keeping other super powers in check keeps us safe, involving ourselves in civil wars among various terrorist outfits makes us less safe.

Can't quite see this, unless by military action you mean covert support/proxy wars (which I still don't like). Would you go to war directly with Russia to help Ukraine? Who would have the long supply lines, again? And why wouldn't that leave them broken on the field like Vietnam was when the super powers were done with it? Is that really in their best interest

Hong Kong is not a country, it was a British colony ceded by Britain to China and is wholly their possession. Again, would you go to war directly with China over territory that the British basically handed over years ago? Make war in a country on China's border but halfway around the world from us? Wouldn't you have to destroy Hong Kong to save it?

Why not be in favor of winnable wars with clearly defined goals and benchmarks for achieving them, with an exit strategy pre-planned if those goals prove impossible to achieve; and save the blood and treasure to invest in our armed forces for when we inevitably will have to fight one or the other of them (smart money says it will be the ChiComs)

 

[Tombs]

This is me not wading into the "definition of a neocon" argument.

And, Tombs, I think your position and mine are very close together - our foreign policy should be principled. Not just in terms of "doing what's right for America" but doing what's right based on American values.

But this caught my attention....


This was the thinking pre-9/11. Nothing bad can happen to us in Afghanistan. We helped the mujahadeen against the Sovs, but then bailed without any effort to build relations with them (leaving that to Pakistan).

We need to be smart and careful, learn the right lessons. Not every ****hole country civil war is going to need attention. But our surveillance and intelligence agencies need to be on top of their game to help tell the difference.

Please do remember, it was a bleeding heart named "Charlie 'Good time' Wilson" who we have to thank for all of that. He saw the Soviets slaughtering Mujaheddin fighters in droves and begged congress to send them arms, which got us involved in their affairs. Eventually we decided to stop supporting them. They didn't take too kindly to us withdrawing support.

Moral of the story is, we had no business getting ourselves involved with them in the first place. We have bigger fish to fry, like maintaining satellites around other super powers to keep them in check.

Can't quite see this, unless by military action you mean covert support/proxy wars (which I still don't like). Would you go to war directly with Russia to help Ukraine? Who would have the long supply lines, again? And why wouldn't that leave them broken on the field like Vietnam was when the super powers were done with it? Is that really in their best interest

Hong Kong is not a country, it was a British colony ceded by Britain to China and is wholly their possession. Again, would you go to war directly with China over territory that the British basically handed over years ago? Make war in a country on China's border but halfway around the world from us? Wouldn't you have to destroy Hong Kong to save it?

Why not be in favor of winnable wars with clearly defined goals and benchmarks for achieving them, with an exit strategy pre-planned if those goals prove impossible to achieve; and save the blood and treasure to invest in our armed forces for when we inevitably will have to fight one or the other of them (smart money says it will be the ChiComs)

I understand what you're getting at, but the clearly defined goals here are to make other super powers realize we do not roll over as they gorge themselves on clay.

All Ukraine would have needed to stop Russia would have been a large deployment of troops and tanks to the region to occupy it until Russian forces decided a major war was not worth the clay. Likewise with Hong Kong, it had relative autonomy, and now China is deciding that it no longer gets to have that. Positioning a naval fleet until things blow over would likely be enough to force a compromise.

We do this all the time to intimidate tin-pot nations in the middle east that pose us no real threat. We need to demonstrate we do not fear people more on our own level.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Please do remember, it was a bleeding heart named "Charlie 'Good time' Wilson" who we have to thank for all of that. He saw the Soviets slaughtering Mujaheddin fighters in droves and begged congress to send them arms, which got us involved in their affairs. Eventually we decided to stop supporting them. They didn't take too kindly to us withdrawing support.

Moral of the story is, we had no business getting ourselves involved with them in the first place. We have bigger fish to fry, like maintaining satellites around other super powers to keep them in check.



I understand what you're getting at, but the clearly defined goals here are to make other super powers realize we do not roll over as they gorge themselves on clay.

All Ukraine would have needed to stop Russia would have been a large deployment of troops and tanks to the region to occupy it until Russian forces decided a major war was not worth the clay. Likewise with Hong Kong, it had relative autonomy, and now China is deciding that it no longer gets to have that. Positioning a naval fleet until things blow over would likely be enough to force a compromise.

We do this all the time to intimidate tin-pot nations in the middle east that pose us no real threat. We need to demonstrate we do not fear people more on our own level.

Actually, you mean Truman (i.e. the Truman Doctrine)

 

[BugI02]

Please do remember, it was a bleeding heart named "Charlie 'Good time' Wilson" who we have to thank for all of that. He saw the Soviets slaughtering Mujaheddin fighters in droves and begged congress to send them arms, which got us involved in their affairs. Eventually we decided to stop supporting them. They didn't take too kindly to us withdrawing support.

Moral of the story is, we had no business getting ourselves involved with them in the first place. We have bigger fish to fry, like maintaining satellites around other super powers to keep them in check.



I understand what you're getting at, but the clearly defined goals here are to make other super powers realize we do not roll over as they gorge themselves on clay.

All Ukraine would have needed to stop Russia would have been a large deployment of troops and tanks to the region to occupy it until Russian forces decided a major war was not worth the clay. Likewise with Hong Kong, it had relative autonomy, and now China is deciding that it no longer gets to have that. Positioning a naval fleet until things blow over would likely be enough to force a compromise.

We do this all the time to intimidate tin-pot nations in the middle east that pose us no real threat. We need to demonstrate we do not fear people more on our own level.

How'd that work out for the folks at Pearl

 

[Tombs]

How'd that work out for the folks at Pearl

2403 dead vs 220,000~ dead

Japan learned that if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes, and has never been a threat again.

 

[DadSmith]

The Pentagon is full of Obama appointees. That's why the military has all this social engineering/political correct garbage in it now. My boys have to go through sensitively classes now days. The last one I heard of was how to act when a pregnant male was in the shower with them.

I was saying What in the hell. Come to find out it was a female that claims to be a Male that got pregnant by guess what another Male while claiming she's a Male taking a shower with real males.

Yes that's the garbage Obama and generals like Mattis brought into our military.

Mattis for president? No thanks.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Pentagon is full of Obama appointees. That's why the military has all this social engineering/political correct garbage in it now. My boys have to go through sensitively classes now days. The last one I heard of was how to act when a pregnant male was in the shower with them.

I was saying What in the hell. Come to find out it was a female that claims to be a Male that got pregnant by guess what another Male while claiming she's a Male taking a shower with real males.

Yes that's the garbage Obama and generals like Mattis brought into our military.

Mattis for president? No thanks.

Wait what? That's not true. On it's face, it would seem obvious. The vast majority of Pentagon employees appointed by Obama were gone by the end of 2017. There were 17 holdovers and 52 vacancies March 2017, but those holdovers are mostly, if not completely gone. And General Mattis was obviously a Trump appointee.