Big Lies

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-21-2017, 12:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-20-2017, 10:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-20-2017, 10:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Show me a war that didn't have congressional support? Was completely pulling out of Iraq, further assisting with the toppling of long standing military regimes which resulted in the rise of ISIS and the greatest humanitarian crisis that the world has seen since World War II, on the ballot in or openly debated in 08'? Well, we can pretty much guarantee that we'll be killing/bombing/disrupting radical Islamic's for the rest of our lifetime and we can pretty much guarantee that there won't be a blue minded President until we are done with radical Islam.

I don't think Genghis Kahn ever had congressional support.

While I don't think the Middle East unimportant, I do think its a quagmire.  As long as Russia, Iran and Turkey are backing their local proxies, nothing is apt to change.  It is just cheaper and easier to play defense given the type of conflict.  I keep asking Powell's Questions.  As we don't have a clean set of answers, I don't anticipate an all out commitment by the US of many boots on the ground.  Trump claimed he knew more about the Middle East than the generals and implied he could and would use the US military to good effect.  While he is kinda sorta trying to keep many of his domestic promises, he hasn't changed Middle East policy.  I don't know if he will commit the US knowing he hasn't got answers to Powell's Questions, but if he does I don't anticipate he will do any better than Bush 43.  Borrow and spend economics doesn't provide enough dollars to expand the US ground forces sufficiently to occupy enough foreign territory to make a difference, not without crashing the US economy.  Republicans simply can't stabilize the Middle East.  Democrats know better than to try.

It is easy for you to rattle a saber sitting safe as you are on the sidelines, but would you care to answer Powell's Questions?  Knock knock.  Reality calling.

As for when we'll get another blue president, we're a month in and Trump has things in a mess.  It seems too soon to be sure of where the country will be in 2020.  As there are no good answers to Powell's Questions, I don't anticipate much change in the Middle East, which will make domestic issues front and center in 2020.

Trump has encountered more resistance/political slow downs early on than I've ever seen up to this point. Does he even have his cabinet in place yet or are the Democrats still committed to stalling the appointment of  as many of them for as long as possible? You can pretty much write off the Trump voters  and the Republicans can decide whether they prefer to feel as they do now or feel like the Democrats do now in four years. As far as Powell's questions, there are no definite answers therefore no good answers as far as the blues are concerned. The blues have no control over radical Islam because radical Islam doesn't give a shit about people or give a shit about the large sums of money that blues influence/control most of the civilized world. BTW, domestic issues were already placed front and center by a Republican candidate who is now your President who will placing a lot of pressure on the Democrats to begin representing those whom  they've always claimed to represent or accept the fear of being challenged and  eliminated by a Republican who has similar views as Trump.

In these days of extreme partisanship, you're going to get resistance and slow downs.  It's hard to day if Trump is getting more or less resistance than Obama, but both got / are getting more than enough to make it hard to govern.  The difference is that Trump hasn't got the people skills to hold together a coalition.  He's having almost as much trouble from the Republicans as the Democrats.  There is a saying that if your opponents are self destructing, don't interfere, stand back and watch.  I'm thinking this is a good time for the Democrats to remember that.

If you can't answer Powell's questions and still want to rattle sabers, I can't respect where you are coming from.

No one has control over radical Islam as many in the region have been oppressed by both capitalists looking for cheap oil and the sort of autocratic state terror focused dictators of the broad Hitler / Stalin / Genghis Kahn style that you advocate.  They have had enough and are going to be advocating for something better until they get it.  Alas, there are enough foreign powers backing the autocratic dictators and theocratic tyrants that nothing is apt to change.  Sending more people, guns and explosives into a troubled region, if you don't send in enough for a clean victory, isn't going to help.  One only increases the body count and destruction.  See the Middle East since Bush 43's invasions.

Oh.  Sorry.  You don't do reality.  I forgot.

And trickle down borrow and spend isn't compatible with your Hitler / Stalin / Genghis Kahn style of government.  Such people require a fully mobilized military to satisfy their bloodlust and egos.  One requires a certain number of boots on the ground to suppress an insurrection.  Bush 43 demonstrated that the US can't raise sufficient troops to control the Middle East on a trickle down borrow and spend economic policy.  One collapses the economy if one tries.

Of course, helping the people on a borrow and spend trickle down economy is also implausible.  This is not so much a problem for the Republicans, though.  They have little desire to help people.