Donald Trump now advocating War Crimes to deal with ISIS.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Obama's platform for getting elected, was that he would get our troops out of Afghanistan.

Today he is sending more troops into Afghanistan.

Bitch.

-John
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Obama took our troops out after we "won" and left a vacuum. Isis filled it. In all fairness to the left, after Russia left Afghanistan the US did nothing to fill that vacuum either and Al-Qaeda (sp?) filled it. In that case we weren't already there, but it did result in Al-Qaeda.

Jim
That's not fair. We gave the Iraqis freedom and allowed them to set up the government they wished, as we should. The only way the Iraqis would consent to American troops remaining longer was if they were given power to try them for crimes as they wished. No President would or should consent to that, and the only other way to keep troops there would be to ignore their demands. To ignore the sovereignty we gave them. That would have made a mockery of our supposedly saving them. The Iraqis are responsible for ISIS, and after them, Bush comes wwaaay before Obama for giving them the power to allow that to happen. Allowing Saddam to stay in power with his secret police, torture killing terrorism, and rape rooms would be an evil thing, but there would be no ISIS nation.

Obama may have a truly befuddled and ineffective Middle Eastern policy, but it's not like Bush's or anyone else's actually works. And to my mind, spending tens of billions and occasional lost American lives for no useful results beats hell out of spending a trillion and thousands of lost American lives for no useful results.
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,529
37,070
136
That's not fair. We gave the Iraqis freedom and allowed them to set up the government they wished, as we should. The only way the Iraqis would consent to American troops remaining longer was if they were given power to try them for crimes as they wished. No President would or should consent to that, and the only other way to keep troops there would be to ignore their demands. To ignore the sovereignty we gave them. That would have made a mockery of our supposedly saving them. The Iraqis are responsible for ISIS, and after them, Bush comes wwaaay before Obama for giving them the power to allow that to happen. Allowing Saddam to stay in power with his secret police, torture killing terrorism, and rape rooms would be an evil thing, but there would be no ISIS nation.

Obama may have a truly befuddled and ineffective Middle Eastern policy, but it's not like Bush's or anyone else's actually works. And to my mind, spending tens of billions and occasional lost American lives for no useful results beats hell out of spending a trillion and thousands of lost American lives for no useful results.


Tip 'o the hat to you, sir, well said. *applause* :biggrin:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
We're at war, do you understand that?

-John
No, we're not. The US has not actually fought a war since 1945. War is when the best of our country get drafted to fight and die on some beach while the rest of us at home live on rations and work for the war effort. War is when industry is nationalized and the production and sale of consumer products is banned as a luxury. War is when the Constitution gets suspended and speaking out against the government can be considered treason. War is when your taxes double but the debt still skyrockets.
Get a clue.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Tip 'o the hat to you, sir, well said. *applause* :biggrin:
Thanks.

Read through the thread waiting to see the outrage at this comment and of course there was none. :)
I'm a southerner born and bred and I have no animus toward Sherman. As atrocities went, he wasn't so far out of line with the norm, and he ended the war. People tend to concentrate on his his brutality, but he was a genius at planning marches to threaten two or more targets the Confederates had to defend, leaving him free to throw his weight against one force and thus defeat them in detail. Another year of war would have been far worse.

No, we're not. The US has not actually fought a war since 1945. War is when the best of our country get drafted to fight and die on some beach while the rest of us at home live on rations and work for the war effort. War is when industry is nationalized and the production and sale of consumer products is banned as a luxury. War is when the Constitution gets suspended and speaking out against the government can be considered treason. War is when your taxes double but the debt still skyrockets.
Get a clue.
Well said. I do wish though that every time Congress authorized military force, it had to be declared as a war and funded with a special surtax on every taxpayer. Besides giving us all skin in the game, sacrifice for our military adventures should not fall solely on the military, nor be funded by our children.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,743
892
126
Obama took our troops out after we "won" and left a vacuum. Isis filled it. In all fairness to the left, after Russia left Afghanistan the US did nothing to fill that vacuum either and Al-Qaeda (sp?) filled it. In that case we weren't already there, but it did result in Al-Qaeda.

Jim

That's not what happened. There was no vacuum. When the US left there was the Iraqi government in power under al-Maliki. After the US left, he kicked the Sunni minority out of the government and isolated them. Much of the former Iraqi army officers were Sunni and they formed the core of ISIS. If the Iraqi government was more inclusive, then ISIS might not have formed since it would lack support from the Sunnis.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
Obama took our troops out after we "won" and left a vacuum. Isis filled it. In all fairness to the left, after Russia left Afghanistan the US did nothing to fill that vacuum either and Al-Qaeda (sp?) filled it. In that case we weren't already there, but it did result in Al-Qaeda.

Jim

By this did you mean "abided by an agreement negotiated by GWB and insisted on by the Iraqi government?

Are you saying that Obama should have continued occupying Iraq by force, against the wishes of its government? If not, then what?
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,537
4,623
136
Obama took our troops out after we "won" and left a vacuum. Isis filled it. Jim

Jesus wept.

Obama took our troops out per the agreement between The United States and Iraq, negotiated before he was even President.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
That's not fair. We gave the Iraqis freedom and allowed them to set up the government they wished, as we should. The only way the Iraqis would consent to American troops remaining longer was if they were given power to try them for crimes as they wished. No President would or should consent to that, and the only other way to keep troops there would be to ignore their demands. To ignore the sovereignty we gave them. That would have made a mockery of our supposedly saving them. The Iraqis are responsible for ISIS, and after them, Bush comes wwaaay before Obama for giving them the power to allow that to happen. Allowing Saddam to stay in power with his secret police, torture killing terrorism, and rape rooms would be an evil thing, but there would be no ISIS nation.

Obama may have a truly befuddled and ineffective Middle Eastern policy, but it's not like Bush's or anyone else's actually works. And to my mind, spending tens of billions and occasional lost American lives for no useful results beats hell out of spending a trillion and thousands of lost American lives for no useful results.


Bush screwed the pooch on that one,first by a war on false pretenses, second by by not retaining the majority of Iraqis in their jobs for the daily running of the country, and third by allowing Sharia religious law to be the basis of their new constitution instead of secular law.

General Douglas Macarthur laid the ground work for occupying and transforming a country while allowing the occupied people to get back to work and keep their dignity.

Bush should have opened up a history book first before going to war and occupying a country he barely understood.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,030
5,321
136
Obama took our troops out after we "won" and left a vacuum. Isis filled it. In all fairness to the left, after Russia left Afghanistan the US did nothing to fill that vacuum either and Al-Qaeda (sp?) filled it. In that case we weren't already there, but it did result in Al-Qaeda.

Jim

Wait, wasn't Obama busy messing up the Katrina situation at that time?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
Are you saying that Obama should have continued occupying Iraq by force, against the wishes of its government?

The two answers I usually run into on this are that yes Obama should have violated Iraqi sovereignty and kept troops there indefinitely or that he set up the SOFA negotiations for failure (without specifying how) in the first place.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,598
482
126
So you think that Shermans troops war crimes were OK.

War Crimes... well, sadly Sherman was probably Karma's agent in response to the crimes against humanity that was slavery in the South. If you believe in things like that. However, you're both right. Sherman's actions can be called War Crimes... however, it's hard to argue that a population that supported slavery deserves much sympathy over destroyed infrastructure, burned towns and destroyed crops.

Of course there were probably not many in the South who were wealthy enough to own plantations or many slaves so it probably was a case of the average person paying for the avarice of the wealthy few back then... the more things change etc, etc.


Going by today's standards American history is brutal. Even well into the 20th century there were lynchings.

Even today we don't indict our own over war crimes... so it's just S.O.P. to countenance them.


___________________________
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,598
482
126
The two answers I usually run into on this are that yes Obama should have violated Iraqi sovereignty and kept troops there indefinitely or that he set up the SOFA negotiations for failure (without specifying how) in the first place.
<conservative rant>

Obama turned the amazing success that was Iraq into an abject failure because he's an appeaser.

</conservative rant>



________________
 

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
These attacks on US soil only strengthen Trump and his loonies.

It would be calamitous if that bozo gets elected President. Even the Gods cannot save America if that happens.

Japan is in an enviable position - insignificant influence of the Abrahamic cults and somewhat stable economy.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,133
27,917
136
So when would President Trump send a special forces guy to day care and shoot the 6 month old baby in the head?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
First, he needs to define "take out" before we can have any more discussion on it. You can't assume he means to kill them. If it's capturing them, then sure. They could have been the ones who enabled the radicalization. If that happens to be the case, then they need to be deported. For example, the San Bernadino killers' families here. What if they believe the same shit - that non-believers should be killed? If so, why should they be allowed to stay here?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
No, we're not. The US has not actually fought a war since 1945. War is when the best of our country get drafted to fight and die on some beach while the rest of us at home live on rations and work for the war effort. War is when industry is nationalized and the production and sale of consumer products is banned as a luxury. War is when the Constitution gets suspended and speaking out against the government can be considered treason. War is when your taxes double but the debt still skyrockets.
Get a clue.
Don't be naive, you know what he meant. We are not literally at war domestically, duh. We are in an ideological war that will only get worse now that they have declared war on us and Russia. Now that blood has been shed on our soil in the name of ISIS, this is just the beginning.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,537
4,623
136
Now that blood has been shed on our soil in the name of ISIS, this is just the beginning.


So, we can count on your whiny fear and loathing posts, with all of their dog-whistle hate-speech to get us through the long, hard war?

Spare us, please.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,086
1,570
126
I know folks who will revel in Trump doing this.
That terrorism exists because America has been too soft.
"Take the gloves off".

You know people who fully believe in that?

Its sort of like how people thought that we were too soft on alcohol and so we had prohibition. Then they thought we were too soft on maryjane and we had the war on drugs ...

declaring war on an idea only makes the idea stronger.