Trump thread,gone ??

banzai posted:

With Trump,  he may do it.

Something like the Operation Opera (Babylon) carried out by the Israeli would be a better option than strong, crude words.

That would be a terrible idea. If it were up to me I would reassure the guy that no one has plans for a regime change in North Korea, so he can relax and get himself into a more agreeable mood to accept a phone call from Mr. Tillerson.

The Trump thread, as well as the individual, would surely have been fired by Google as well.

Skip,

I started a new thread.  Let's how long THAT's gonna last.

Hmack posted:

Well, the Trump thread may be gone, but the increasingly erratic and irrational acts by Trump himself continue, as do the irrational and knee jerk responses by those who spring to action in his support at every conceivable opportunity and seek to defend the indefensible. 

    

Hmack,

I think you would get a better response to your post if you kept your teaser out of sight since we tend here to easily get disoriented whenever we are being defined in 'complimentary' terms by our admirers across the Atlantic.

It was already very disturbing during the last administration to learn that some private contractors were operating US drones involved in gathering intelligence (which lead to attacks) while we were promised that these guys were lacking the capacity to pull the trigger. Who knows what the real picture is today.

The idea of using private contractors to do the fighting for US forces in Afghanistan or anywhere else is a very bad one anyway you look at it. The US government would loose control over the fighting force which would probably be accountable only to their CEO. The ability to enforce rules of engagement or punish contractors committing war crimes might not be there. It would probably be impossible to change any operational plan if it was not specified in the contract. On top of that, there is no way that these soldiers of fortune could match the cohesion, professionalism and motivation of the US soldiers who trained and volunteered to serve their nation. This looks like a nightmare scenario for any commanding General and I cannot see anyone  agreeing to it.

Now, you will always get the people with numbers and a business model pointing out that the government would save a fortune by not having to give any pension to the mercenaries, it will have no responsibility for the care of the injured, nor for compensation for the dead , such an easy life.The clear answer to them should be that not everything is about money.

Hmack, looking at your country and its past history, I think that it was criminal and completely heartless to draft hundreds of thousands of natives in your colonies so you could use them to fight England's wars in foreign lands against people they had no quarrel with. I am willing to bet that they also were drastically underpaid. I know, they weren't doing it for Trump, just for the Queen.

MDS posted:

Latest utterance: "They [N Korea] will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

That should calm things down nicely.

"Turgidson:  Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

Muffley:  You're talking about mass murder, General, not war.

Turgidson:  Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks.

Muffley:  I will not go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolph Hitler!

Turgidson:  Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American people, than with your image in the history books."

Haim Ronen posted:

Hmack posted:

Well, the Trump thread may be gone, but the increasingly erratic and irrational acts by Trump himself continue, as do the irrational and knee jerk responses by those who spring to action in his support at every conceivable opportunity and seek to defend the indefensible. 

    

Hmack,

I think you would get a better response to your post if you kept your teaser out of sight since we tend here to easily get disoriented whenever we are being defined in 'complimentary' terms by our admirers across the Atlantic.

It was already very disturbing during the last administration to learn that some private contractors were operating US drones involved in gathering intelligence (which lead to attacks) while we were promised that these guys were lacking the capacity to pull the trigger. Who knows what the real picture is today.

The idea of using private contractors to do the fighting for US forces in Afghanistan or anywhere else is a very bad one anyway you look at it. The US government would loose control over the fighting force which would probably be accountable only to their CEO. The ability to enforce rules of engagement or punish contractors committing war crimes might not be there. It would probably be impossible to change any operational plan if it was not specified in the contract. On top of that, there is no way that these soldiers of fortune could match the cohesion, professionalism and motivation of the US soldiers who trained and volunteered to serve their nation. This looks like a nightmare scenario for any commanding General and I cannot see anyone  agreeing to it.

Now, you will always get the people with numbers and a business model pointing out that the government would save a fortune by not having to give any pension to the mercenaries, it will have no responsibility for the care of the injured, nor for compensation for the dead , such an easy life.The clear answer to them should be that not everything is about money.

Hmack, looking at your country and its past history, I think that it was criminal and completely heartless to draft hundreds of thousands of natives in your colonies so you could use them to fight England's wars in foreign lands against people they had no quarrel with. I am willing to bet that they also were drastically underpaid. I know, they weren't doing it for Trump, just for the Queen.

 

Haim you actually mostly had me onside 'til you started peddling ill informed anti-British hate once more.  As it is you now get a reply pointing out your contradictory statements.

Para 1.  This is a non sequitur.  It bears no relationship to the post to which it purports to reply.

Para 2.  Salient point "Who knows what the real picture is today."

Para 3.1  "On top of that, there is no way that these soldiers of fortune could match the cohesion, professionalism and motivation of the US soldiers who trained and volunteered to serve their nation."  Many mercenaries are more professional and better controlled than some elements of the US forces, getting the right mercenaries is key here.  N.B. this is NOT support for the use of mercenaries, even though it's still general practice for many African countries (and a few middle-eastern cultures).

Para 3.2  This looks like a nightmare scenario for any commanding General and I cannot see anyone  agreeing to it."  It's entirely feasible that Mr Trump could agree to it, some of his other outbursts have been just as jingoistic and irrational (and don't forget as Commander-in-Chief he can give a military order to the generals forcing them to accept this; and if he does so, there's nothing they can do about it!).

Para 4.  Wow! I actually agree with this!

Para 5.  Try actually doing some research (e.g. into recent British history) before you make such allegations.  Your accusations here are entirely false. 
First:  You use of the term 'natives' is derogatory and has NO place here: I've met a number of Gurkas and I have nothing but respect for them, as did my father and grandfather who both served with them!
Second:  Colonial units of the British forces were never drafted.  Britain has a long history of volunteer recruitment; and, ever since the Napoleonic wars ended, the only forces who have been drafted (and only in the first and second world wars) were all British citizens.
Given the errors in the first part of your paragraph the last part makes no sense at all since they didn't exist.

If you want people to give any credence to your position, get your facts right rather than relying on insults and ill-informed half truths.

Adam Meredith posted:

MDS posted:

Latest utterance: "They [N Korea] will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

That should calm things down nicely.

"Turgidson:  Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

Muffley:  You're talking about mass murder, General, not war.

Turgidson:  Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks.

Muffley:  I will not go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolph Hitler!

Turgidson:  Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American people, than with your image in the history books."

I've always loved that film. Funny and too life-like for comfort. 

MDS posted:

I've always loved that film. Funny and too life-like for comfort. 

Maybe the mercenaries well have to answer to the Coke-Cola company?

Interesting view on European colonialism:

I don't see anything but the exploitation and annihilation of culture when a country colonise other country.
This isn't a pot shot at British. We all have done it through the history. :/

But UK's record was rather impressive!

Haim Ronen posted:

Hmack, looking at your country and its past history, I think that it was criminal and completely heartless to draft hundreds of thousands of natives in your colonies so you could use them to fight England's wars in foreign lands against people they had no quarrel with. I am willing to bet that they also were drastically underpaid. I know, they weren't doing it for Trump, just for the Queen.

 

I think that most people in Britain wouldn't dream of claiming that all that was done in history was the right thing to do - many things clearly were bad, if not by the standards of the time. However we live in more enlightened times now, so using history to justify something now is fundamentally ridiculous and wrong, denying all learning and advancement.

(replacement post because of error in original)

Haim Ronen posted:

A quite ludicrous comment, and totally out of context with the post to which he was responding. 

"Hmack, looking at your country and its past history, I think that it was criminal and completely heartless to draft hundreds of thousands of natives in your colonies so you could use them to fight England's wars in foreign lands against people they had no quarrel with. I am willing to bet that they also were drastically underpaid. I know, they weren't doing it for Trump, just for the Queen."

A number of others have already commented on this part of your post, including the important fact that individuals from the British colonies were never 'conscripted'. However, I will add a few comments of my own with regard to your propensity to hit out at posters who do not agree with your opinion of Donald Trump, by 'criticizing' ' Britain's past and distant colonial history. You may notice that almost all posts criticizing Donald Trump and his behaviour are just that. They are not barbs about the US as a country, nor are they barbs about the US's potentially chequered history. Unlike the rhetoric of some of the pro Trump posts, they are barbs aimed specifically at the man who just happens to be the current president of the United States.

Now, I may get this factually wrong in places, but:

- The Romans have 'invaded' Britain and carried out many atrocities in the process (admittedly in addition to providing an infrastructure framework that ultimately proved somewhat beneficial to Britain in the long run)     

- The Danes, Norwegians and Swedes (as Vikings) invaded (or raided) Britain on countless occasions, committing countless atrocities in the process 

- The Germans were (in my eyes) responsible for a World War that killed many millions of people, including one of my Grandfathers who served in the British Army during the war. 

I also accept that there are many aspects of Britain's colonial and other historical past, of which I and almost certainly most others in the UK would not be proud, to put it very mildly. However, these are no reflection of who or what we are today, both as individuals or as a nation.

My point is that despite the atrocities committed by those groups above (not to mention those committed by England against the Scots) , I feel absolutely no enmity whatsoever towards Italians, Danes, Norwegians, Swedes,  Germans nor the English (well, except when they beat us at football), nor for that matter towards any of our traditional enemies of the recent and distant past. These events, and others to which you may refer, are totally irrelevant in modern day society.

My dear Huge & Hmack,

There is no way you can walk away from your own history and the fact that the British Empire employed colonial soldiers on a grand scale to fight its wars all the way to the twentieth century, and this is regardless to the terms you elect to use for these locals, the color of their uniforms, the type of flags they waved or the causes they died for.. The one thing it does is call for some humility on your part when discussing the handing part of the US mission in Afghanistan to private contractors and sounding like it is the biggest catastrophe in modern times warfare.

Upon examining today's US military's role in Afghanistan you will notice that its main task is to train the local security forces. There are very few Americans engaged in actual fighting and they are mostly the fliers who provide air-support and the officers directing them from the ground. Now, Black Water doesn't have any air capability (unless it started a new division of Black Cloud) so I am assuming that the thinking was to hire them for the job of training the Afghanis. I am still very much against it on moral, practical and financial grounds. I don't see any reason why the tax payers should foot the bill for private contractors when the military can better perform the same job without the extra cost..

Now, we are in a complete state of depression here due to your constant waves of negativity. Is it possible for you to identify any glimmer of positivity? How about the recent news the US has decided to halt supporting the Free Democratic forces in Syria. That was an ill conceived, half hearted program that started by the previous administration which cost close to a billion dollars and hardly made any difference other than flood the civil war theatre with more weaponry, part of which ended in the hands of militias affiliated with Al Qaeda. What do you think, guys?

I also posted the same post on Trump #2 thread which might be a more apropriate place for the discussion.

OK, to save you all from straddling two threads, I think it's best to close this one and so you can continue the "discussion" on the Trump Take 2 thread.