Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2014, 06:57:33 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 57
126  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: What should we do with ISIS? on: August 11, 2014, 08:43:39 pm
I assume by "airstrikes in Syria" you mean against Islamic State targets, not Assad Loyalists? Attacking Assad would be rather counterproductive to defeating The Islamic State at this point.
127  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Green Zone surrounded by tanks in suspected coup on: August 11, 2014, 08:41:54 pm
It is reductionistic to simplify Maliki to being an American puppet. And besides: he's going to get the boot or the noose soon anyway.

Yeah. He's really more of an Iranian client if anything.
128  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: August 11, 2014, 07:32:41 pm
Would it be possible to have an entirely separate peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank? This way we can largely bypass Hamas and still resolve most of the main issues.
129  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Islamic State terrorists bury 500 Yazidis alive, enslave 300 women on: August 11, 2014, 10:49:57 am
Could we not use the word "terrorists" like in the thread title?  ISIS is an actual army, albeit one committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, not a terrorist organization.  Describing ISIS as a terrorist organization ruins the usefulness of the word terrorism.

Fair enough. I always thought it was missing the point to describe Hamas and Hezbollah strictly as terrorist groups when they basically have standing armies and functioning governments. When some people on CNN were debating Hamas I thought they were being rather naive not to recognize the fact that the Gaza strip is for all intents and purposes a small nation state run by Hamas. "Hamasistan", if you will. There are really "two Palestines" at this point.
130  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Israeli marriage law on: August 10, 2014, 07:56:39 pm
Ironically Nurembergesque. Sometime when I think of Israel it's almost like the universe went out of it's way to be as ironic as possible regarding Israel. Even down to the same geographic direction earmarked for expansion.
131  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Is George W. Bush to blame for ISIS? on: August 10, 2014, 07:23:41 pm
Perhaps indirectly, in the same way that Wilhelm II is responsible for Stalin.  Sure, he's a link in the chain, but the rise of ISIS was hardly *inevitable* from his actions.  Instability in general could be more heavily attributed to him, and even then there's caveats that complicate things.  There's been ample chance for the course to have been diverted since then, and by that I don't mean undoing all the damage, but it's like a asteroid.  The further away it is, the less of a push you have to give it to avoid it hitting a very specific spot.
132  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DEMOCRATS: If Hillary doesn't run, who would you like to see as President? on: August 09, 2014, 08:40:41 pm
Elizabeth Warren.
133  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Church cancels gay man's funeral on: August 09, 2014, 08:37:45 pm
Nothing more annoying than a homophobic racial minority. Urgh.

I know right? Black people in the Southeast are the worst about it. They're the first to complain about "discrimination" but God forbid (perhaps literally) they get over their hatred of gays and to a lesser extent Hispanics. Meanwhile their mac daddy "preachers" utterly fleece their congregants and buy expensive luxury cars, expensive watches and jewelry and justify it all with their ridiculous "prosperity gospel". Never mind the fact that said preachers are typically the most smug, entitled pricks you will ever meet. Terrible.

Obviously there are really decent and good black churches that help with community building and fellowship but this trend is real and it persists. A lot of white churches are the same way but they typically aren't as blatant.

134  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: American forces bomb ISIS targets in Iraq on: August 08, 2014, 05:08:34 pm
It's people like Chairman Sanchez and Deus Naturae here that are turning me into a foreign policy hawk. In a vacuum, a foreign policy of nonintervention seems sound, but just like many ideas that are "good in theory" they just aren't workable or reasonable in the nuance of real life.

While sectarian tensions in Iraq aren't new, we're the ones who toppled their government overnight, destroyed the existing social power structures, and forced them into a decade of foreign military occupation as a rumbling insurgency wrought havoc throughout the nation taking countless lives. We're the ones who effectively pulled out overnight and washed our hands of the matter while that insurgency transformed into a brutal sectarian revolution. ISIS is killing thousands of innocents whose only crime is practicing the "wrong" religion (or even practicing "right" one in an inadequate manner). This is our mess and we should be responsible for cleaning it up because we left the nation of Iraq in shambles. If we have the capacity to act and prevent death and oppression there's only one moral solution.

ISIS is rapidly advancing on the Kurdish capital of Erbil, the current home of the United States diplomatic mission to Iraq and the heart of our only real ally east of Jerusalem. If Iraqi Kurdistan falls then Baghdad falls because ISIS would no longer need to hold two fronts in Iraq. If Baghdad falls without America lifting a finger, then the rump Shia Iraq that's left will beg Iran for assistance and intervention. At that point ISIS's self-styled "Caliphate" would probably step up the killing of Shia civilians to the point of outright genocide.

This has the potential to go very wrong very quickly in so many ways. Fretting about ideological righteousness and partisan squabbling is outrageously ridiculous when there's tens of thousands of a minority religious group holding off on a mountainside. There faced with options of rescue or genocide- but that choice isn't for them to make. That choice gets made by people in Washington DC who are so out of touch that they weigh the chance to prevent a slaughter of thousands of innocent lives against a "public relations backlash" that would result. They're forced into such a situation by people like you, with righteous indignation about how that genocide "isn't our problem to stop!" People like you are why the Rwandan Genocide was allowed to happen. The boneheaded isolationist ideology you represent is the single greatest flaw of American democracy because it equates self-dependence with utterly immoral selfishness.

The combat airstrikes were visible from the Kurdish side of the front line- the front line that's been steadily pushing towards the Kurds for the past week. It's an active combat zone and was literally the no-man's land just a few days ago. Any civilians would have evacuated from the area well before the bombs fell, although I'm deeply sorry that your masturbatory delusions of exploding hospitals did not come true.

(drunk effortpost, sorry if not legible, things just struck a chord with me. not proofreading so my bad for typos)

This... just... this.
135  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of proletariat revolutions on: August 07, 2014, 09:55:41 pm
Excellent revolutions, of course.
136  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What is your primary news source? on: August 07, 2014, 06:43:34 pm
Al-Jazeera, Politico, France24, and MSNBC.
137  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: American forces bomb ISIS targets in Iraq on: August 07, 2014, 06:42:26 pm
138  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could the Kennedy-Obama alliance ruin Hillary's hopes...again? on: August 06, 2014, 11:30:37 pm
The relevant Kennedy's are all dead and Obama will support Clinton.
139  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Best GOP Almost-President: Thomas Dewey or Bob Dole on: August 06, 2014, 11:29:50 pm
They do exist today. We call them Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and their allies in the Tea Party.

Get used to maps like this then:

140  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Best GOP Almost-President: Thomas Dewey or Bob Dole on: August 06, 2014, 09:29:07 pm
Dewey, easily.
141  General Discussion / Alternative History / Re: American domestic policy in the event of a Nazi victory in Europe on: August 06, 2014, 05:03:23 pm
I think we have reach the point of splitting hairs on the general question. I said "unless stopped, he was going to get it", which is rather obvious naturally. An alliance to check Hitler would count as such, no?

That' absurd logic. That could be argued but how you just phrased it would be like saying anyone will have anything they want "unless stopped", with society being the factor stopping them.

It would be like saying "unless stopped" some random spree shooter is going to "kill everyone in the world". And then if someone pointed out how absurd that is because the police will overwhelm them relativity quickly and they couldn't travel that far and wide and you turn around and say "well that would count as something stopping them now wouldn't it"?

I guess it would depend on the demands of such a peace with Britain would be and if it included demilitarization, he could always turn his attention back to it after the USSR and overrun it.

Britain will never accept demilitarization, for reasons you just stated. Nor will she cede any colonies. A white peace is all the Germans can get.

As for 1940 a combination of an effective sea strangulation (assuming the absence of Lend-Lease and such), there is a scenario where Britain can be isolated enough to be defeated. Planes don't fly without oil and once the supplies were depleted they could be bombed into subsmission and then invaded.

A.) I would assume that even in a timeline where Germany wins WWII there would still be lend-lease, at least to the UK.

B.) The Kriegsmarine isn't as capable as you seem to be giving it credit for. The Royal Navy was much more powerful and had plenty of destroyers. Don't get me wrong the Germans can devastate British shipping but I don't think they can fully cut it off.

C.) Even if Germany gains air superiority over England how will the Germans launch and sustain this ground invasion? All they really had for transport were Rhine river barges and you better bet the entire British navy will steam into the channel if that's what it takes. Then the British will deploy mustard gas on the invading Germans when they hit the beaches.

D.) Even if Germany somehow successfully invades and occupies the UK I would say it could ultimately be a net-negative. We would have a situation where Germany needs to deploy even more troops in the West (France & UK) to occupy the UK and finish off resistance after a bloody battle. Ironically this would make Germany weaker relative to the USSR in 1941. Not to mention that Stalin will be expecting the invasion this time, as the UK is gone and he is clearly next on the hit list.

If Hitler has to delay Barbarossa until 1942 it's over for Germany. The Soviets will have completed their military reforms and will be ready & waiting for the German invasion.

Also, Hitler's insanity drove him to to many stupid decisions I would point out.

While this is true we must remember that he more or less did everything right up until about the Fall of 1941 after the Battle of Smolensk. If anything even bothering with the Battle of Britain was his biggest mistake up to that point. The UK could have been left alone as they had been neutralized. Absent bringing America into the war the British can't summon the raw manpower required to launch a serious landing in the West.

The biggest mistake ultimately was declaring war on the United States.
142  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which state would be a better fit for Hillary Clinton? on: August 04, 2014, 02:32:35 pm
Virginia is because her establishment tinge does well in NOVA and she is more appealing in the more rural portions of the state than Obama, going with the trend.
143  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Will world war 3 start soon? on: August 01, 2014, 11:41:02 pm
I wasn't saying war is inevitable, I was just saying the geo-political situation is rather similar.
144  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Turkish Prime Minister: Israel Has ‘Surpassed What Hitler Did To Them’ on: July 30, 2014, 11:02:46 pm
What a silly thing to say. A simple glance at the numbers and methodologies of the Holocaust makes any comparison to that and the situation in Palestine patently absurd. Erdogan should just drop all this "Neo-Ottoman" nonsense while he can. It's getting silly.

It's amazing how quickly things can turn around. For a while I though Erdogan was going to be a major statesman of the early 21st century but the whole thing just went to hell in a handbasket. It looks like Saudi Arabia will remain the premier Sunni power.
145  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Will world war 3 start soon? on: July 30, 2014, 10:58:14 pm
Think of the USA as Britain circa 1914, and China as Imperial Germany.

I've always thought this was a revelatory accurate comparison. The USA is the global naval power that is also the "status quo" power and China is like Imperial Germany, a rising newcomer power who wants a global sphere for itself.
146  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: GOP just handed the Democrats the house im November on: July 30, 2014, 10:54:36 pm
147  General Discussion / Alternative History / Re: American domestic policy in the event of a Nazi victory in Europe on: July 28, 2014, 04:45:23 pm
For one thing, I never used the word conquer. I said "wanted" and "dominate". Second of all, do you really thing Adolf Hitler would pass up the opportunity to take it, if it presented itself? The man always went beyond his stated desires at nearly every stage, so I don't think Hitler's own self stated limits hold much weight considering, it is you know HITLER we are discussing.

That gets into whole another realm of Hitler's attachment to reality. I merely stated he wanted the world, and once again nothing in his history indicates that his own material limits ever presented an obstacle in his mind. Otherwise he never would have attacked the Soviet Union and/or the US.

Hitler can want whatever he wants, that doesn't mean he's gonna get it. Germany simply can not dominate the globe in his life time and after the Soviets are defeated Hitler will have no problem standing down and developing his pan-European Empire (assuming he is at peace with Britain and the USA). Remember that Hitler wanted a pan-European superstate capable of competing with America. He wasn't silly enough to think he could defeat America within his lifetime.

A question of timing. It was very possible to defeat Britain in 1940. And like William Pitt the Younger noted regarding a Napoleon dominated a Europe, a pan European superpower would eventually come to possess the means by which to defeat the British if left unchecked.

Britain can be brought to make peace in 1940, or later if the USSR is defeated and the USA isn't in the European war. But invaded and conquered or puppetized? No way.

The idea is that the USA will be in a military alliance with the UK thus nixing the economic overpowerment argument. Keep in mind that in this scenario the US and Britain will be in an alliance technically only against Japan but after the UK makes peace with Germany this will rapidly evolve into a general alliance.

In a World War II timeframe yes, but a trans-European Empire with access to Caucasian and Middle Eastern oil, would possess the means not long afterwards and certainly before the 1980's to do so.

Even then I highly doubt this empire would have the logistical capability to directly invade and conquer the mainland USA. Also even if Germany does get nukes the USA will be way ahead of them both in quality and numbers. Germany will be at an atomic deficit similar to the way the USSR was in the 1950's.

The problem with your contention is that it is predicated on Hitler being 1) realistic and 2) credible when he says "this and no more" and Hitler was famous for being neither. On the other hand he was known for was megalomania and delusions about his own abilities and that of his Third Reich.

Hitler may have been insane but he was not stupid. I don't see why he would start another war when all of his war aims have been reached and he is free to develop his New Order in Europe. Especially seeing as by this time it will be clear that Japan is on the way out and he will have to face the USA/UK all by himself.
148  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Poll: Capitalism dying? on: July 28, 2014, 04:09:03 pm
Capitalism is much more efficient than a mixed market system. The only reason we can have a mixed market system is because pure capitalism created enough wealth for all of these safety nets. Capitalism literally has no flaws.

149  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How the Democratic Party became a tool for Wall-Street on: July 27, 2014, 10:25:43 pm
The New Deal coalition says hello.

I don't believe in ghosts.
150  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: What do you call this ideology? on: July 25, 2014, 11:35:35 pm
Generic liberal with an authoritarian and pacifist streak.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 57

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines