46% agree MSM fabricate news about Trump.

[GMDino]

(10-24-2017, 11:59 AM)Vlad Wrote: As in the examples in the video? Show me.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/donald-trump-path-to-270-scenarios/index.html

(10-24-2017, 11:59 AM)Vlad Wrote: Funny how you waited to tell me to stick to "fabricated" stories. Why not Benton? LOL

Well the Op was about 46% believing stories are "fabricated". So....

(10-24-2017, 11:59 AM)Vlad Wrote: As for the rest of your post...

Wait a minute! You're supposed to tell ME to stick with gifs and memes NOt post them YOURSELF! Did you miss the last secret meeting?

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2017, 12:02 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, two issues here.

One- There's been investigations into whistleblower accounts that reports on successes and failures with ISIS were intentionally altered by CentComm to paint a different picture of what's been going on in the Middle East. 

Two- A lot of folks learned their lesson after puffing out chests and in front of "Mission Accomplished" banners. You can defeat ISIS, and that's great. Just like al Qaeda and the groups that came before, you'll have a group of the same usual suspects that move on to the next group. ISIS is a bunch of miserable, pathetic people doing horrible things. And once we "win" against them, there will be another group with many of the same miserable, pathetic people doing horrible things under a different name.

Which is why we need to get out of the Middle East, dump tons of money into finding an energy resource to tap into and tell that part of the world to sort out its problems.

A-*****-men.

If I thought for one minute that we took part in these conflicts out of compassion for the people being murdered, then I'd be more for it. But we're not, and I'm not.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-24-2017, 11:46 AM)Vlad Wrote: Over the last 4-8 yrs. the Islamic extremists known as ISIS  have been at the forefront of the news on almost a daily basis.

Taking that into account, you would expect that it's near defeat would be making the front pages as well.
Raqqa has been retaken and ISIS themselves are now refugees escaping into refugee camps.

Why is it not being reported on a grander scale?
Because Trump is president, and we wouldn't want anything to conflict with the illusion that nothing is getting done under this president. Giving this president credit for anything is taboo.

I have to somewhat agree with this Newsweek article.

Trump did play a part in the defeat of ISIS by giving our military leaders free reign rather than having them report to the White House before any strategic move can be undertaken.
Giving free reign is a campaign promise Trump made if you recall.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-isis-raqqa-isis-capital-687391


 

Who retook Raqqa?

[Vlad]

(10-24-2017, 12:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who retook Raqqa?

You can't open a link?

[Benton]

(10-24-2017, 12:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A-*****-men.

If I thought for one minute that we took part in these conflicts out of compassion for the people being murdered, then I'd be more for it. But we're not, and I'm not.

And that's along the same line as the terrorists' motives. The 'guys who brought you ISIS' aren't interested in promoting Islam. They could care less. They're making an insane amount of money, from the areas they conquer; businesses and governments they extort; rich backers who think they're doing right by their spiritual leaders. They're also getting power that goes along with with it.

On the flip side, we aren't there to protect civilians from other countries. We're there protecting interests of American companies, trying to maintain a strategic advantage in case WWIII ever breaks out, and trying to maintain an oil-dependent economy that's been falling apart since the 90s. Or longer.


I'm not trying to say we're terrorists or as bad as ISIS. We aren't, on either point. But we do have the same motive for being involved in the ME: money.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-24-2017, 12:56 PM)Vlad Wrote: You can't open a link?

You can't answer a question?

[Dill]

(10-24-2017, 11:25 AM)Vlad Wrote: Um...they reported what they wanted you to hear. You know that's true.

Did they portray the community organizer in  '08 as unprepared and inexperienced?
No, they portrayed him as the Messiah.

They portrayed him as a professor of constitutional law and a Senator, who understood how government works.

[Dill]

(10-24-2017, 12:56 PM)Vlad Wrote: You can't open a link?

I did, and I saw that photo of Trump raising the "Mission Accomplished" banner in Raqqa--or wait, maybe that was a Syrian woman raising a Syrian opposition flag.

The military is happy with relaxed civilian control of the military. Maybe we should think about how much more smoothly things would go if there were not civilian control at all?

Someone want's you to believe that Trump somehow made a difference in the war against ISIS, following a campaign already planned and under way when he took office. And you want to believe it.

[Dill]

(10-24-2017, 01:02 PM)Benton Wrote: On the flip side, we aren't there to protect civilians from other countries. We're there protecting interests of American companies, trying to maintain a strategic advantage in case WWIII ever breaks out, and trying to maintain an oil-dependent economy that's been falling apart since the 90s. Or longer.

I'm not trying to say we're terrorists or as bad as ISIS. We aren't, on either point. But we do have the same motive for being involved in the ME: money.

(10-24-2017, 12:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A-*****-men.

If I thought for one minute that we took part in these conflicts out of compassion for the people being murdered, then I'd be more for it. But we're not, and I'm not.

You guys don't see international order as a good in itself?

Directly saving lives or making money are not the only worthwhile drivers of foreign policy, either for the US or most other countries. 

Certainly the US has made a mess in the Middle East, but that was hardly inevitable. I do not see even see a short term value in totally disengaging.  Stop electing incompetent presidents and senators/congressmen is the solution, not abandoning the region to anarchy.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-25-2017, 01:41 AM)Dill Wrote: I did, and I saw that photo of Trump raising the "Mission Accomplished" banner in Raqqa--or wait, maybe that was a Syrian woman raising a Syrian opposition flag.

The military is happy with relaxed civilian control of the military. Maybe we should think about how much more smoothly things would go if there were not civilian control at all?

Someone want's you to believe that Trump somehow made a difference in the war against ISIS, following a campaign already planned and under way when he took office. And you want to believe it.

I wonder how Trump's ROE affected the foreign military units Vlad doesn't want to name in answer to my question?

[BmorePat87]

Republicans seem to be listening to the lamestream media ever since the Hill regurgitated a story about Russia and uranium that the NYT's broke 4 years ago. They're even starting some investigations!

[Benton]

(10-25-2017, 01:57 AM)Dill Wrote: You guys don't see international order as a good in itself?

Directly saving lives or making money are not the only worthwhile drivers of foreign policy, either for the US or most other countries. 

Certainly the US has made a mess in the Middle East, but that was hardly inevitable. I do not see even see a short term value in totally disengaging.  Stop electing incompetent presidents and senators/congressmen is the solution, not abandoning the region to anarchy.

Outside of providing stability to gas prices, no.

Outside of genocide, there’s nothing that’s going to settle conflicts there. It’s unfortunate, but we aren’t going to resolve conflicts that old with a couple decades of occupation. If anything, Korea has taught us that. And that’s another area that doesn’t provide much outside of giving us a great strategic advantage in the event of a war in Asia.

[Dill]

(10-25-2017, 03:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I wonder how Trump's ROE affected the foreign military units Vlad doesn't want to name in answer to my question?

LOL Were the Syrian free fighters calling Obama for permission to move on ISIS?

[Dill]

(10-25-2017, 08:42 AM)Benton Wrote: Outside of providing stability to gas prices, no.

Outside of genocide, there’s nothing that’s going to settle conflicts there. It’s unfortunate, but we aren’t going to resolve conflicts that old with a couple decades of occupation. If anything, Korea has taught us that. And that’s another area that doesn’t provide much outside of giving us a great strategic advantage in the event of a war in Asia.

"Settling conflicts," at least in some final sense, isn't always the point.  Nor is stopping genocide.

I get a different lesson from Korea. The South, along with Japan, has remained free and both are strong economic partners of the US.

That would not be the case had the US had simply pulled out of Korea in '45, and out of the region altogether. That the Korean conflict has not been "settled" in some final sense does make 70 years of US policy there a failure.

If the US pulls out of the region, then South Korea might loose its independence at the cost of many lives, and Japan might be next.  And our confrontations with a more powerful China and Korea are a thousand miles closer to California.

I could make a similar case for the Middle East, especially now that the Iran deal is in place.  Our costly foreign policy fiascos have been more the result of our bad choices, implemented against good advice and historical precedent, than any inherent problem with supporting international order.  Our security is not separate from that of the Middle East and East Asia.