Obama and Hillary's fight against terrorism

[eyeball]

Exactly the point!

Obama and Hillary are "fighting" to lose. To them, it's all just about looking good on tv.

Except when I said we, I meant the western led coalition. Obama and Hillary are simply more of the same.

[cybercoma]

Hillary is trying so hard to look good on TV that the conservatives in the states have criticized her for not being on TV.

betsy's points don't make a lot of sense.

[betsy]

Except when I said we, I meant the western led coalition. Obama and Hillary are simply more of the same.

Corrections: it is a US-led coalition.

A breakdown of the 62 partners in the US-led coalition against Isil and their contribution

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11124070/Who-is-in-the-anti-Islamic-State-coalition-and-what-they-are-contributing.html

That means Obama and Hillary are not just "simply more of the same."

Edited August 22, 2016 by betsy

[segnosaur]

Slight derail....

Actually, the idea that the British were foolishly marching in a straight line while the Americans pick them off using guerilla tactics may actually be a myth. (Mel Gibson movies notwithstanding.)

It wasn't a derail - until just now.

Well, given the fact that this is an incredibly stupid thread, created by a Trump supporter to smear Hillary while ignoring both the facts and similar actions by Trump, I don't think its a great loss.

I'm still speaking to the foolish idea of letting the enemy know your tactics.

As has been pointed out;

- The information about "tactics" revealed are generally so vague as to be completely useless to the enemy

- ISIS probably would have already figured out what was happening regardless

Well, first off, I don't like the idea whether it be Obama, Bush, Trump or anybody else.

Yet this tread was created with the idea of Bashing Just the Democrats. And earlier you were hypocritical (and just plain wrong) when you claimed Trump is "keeping silent about tactics", even though he's given the same sort of information about how he'd deal with ISIS. (He talks about bombing oil fields, etc.)

You seem to want to think this is about the who, not the what.

I've already explained why the "what" is irrelevant... not enough details for the enemy to have any value.

Secondly, the media pretty much forces the gov't and military personnel to do this, and if they don't, they're ridiculed.

Well ,as a voter, I'd like to know how a potential candidate will handle foreign affairs. Will they confront an enemy or be isolationist? Will they use tactics I agree with or not?

Early in the election, Trump said he would engage in war crimes. I think that is a valuable piece of information, and if I were an American voter, I would want to know that, should I think the possible military decisions of a president reflects badly on the country as a whole.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Early in the election, Trump said he would engage in war crimes. I think that is a valuable piece of information, and if I were an American voter, I would want to know that, should I think the possible military decisions of a president reflects badly on the country as a whole.

"War crimes" are quite acceptable to many voters, depending on the circumstances. This is true for even Canadian voters.

[segnosaur]

"War crimes" are quite acceptable to many voters...

Yes they are. So is "sending black people back to Africa", killing doctors who have performed abortions, and treating gay people as second class citizens. You will find many voters who believe in those things; fortunately, the majority view them as wrong.

The fact that some people want the U.S. to engage in war crimes does not necessarily make it right, either from a moral position, or from a tactical position.

Another thing is that the U.S. military, by rule of law, may actually be forbidden from carrying out orders that would be considered war crimes. Trump claimed they would anyways "because he'd tell them to". The fact that Trump would think his orders would carry more weight than the rule of law was really quite revealing. (At best it shows ignorance on his part, at worst it shows an autoritarian attitude which is quite dangerous.)

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes they are. So is "sending black people back to Africa", killing doctors who have performed abortions, and treating gay people as second class citizens. You will find many voters who believe in those things; fortunately, the majority view them as wrong.

Save the morality play for another thread. Many U.S. policies and military actions are considered to be "war crimes", yet they continue to have wide support by present and past administrations, voters, and allied nations.

The fact that some people want the U.S. to engage in war crimes does not necessarily make it right, either from a moral position, or from a tactical position.

This is not about right or wrong. The U.S. engages in "war crimes" as required/desired. Why get "moral" now ? Because it might be Trump doing it ?

Another thing is that the U.S. military, by rule of law, may actually be forbidden from carrying out orders that would be considered war crimes. Trump claimed they would anyways "because he'd tell them to". The fact that Trump would think his orders would carry more weight than the rule of law was really quite revealing. (At best it shows ignorance on his part, at worst it shows an autoritarian attitude which is quite dangerous.)

Please...this is very naive at best. U.S. presidents solicit options from their cabinets and joint chiefs, which often include military actions that the morality folk often consider to be "war crimes". Whoops...there goes another drone attack !

Edited August 24, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[-TSS-]

Surely a lot of emotional speeches today on the 15th anniversary of 9/11.

[sharkman]

Yes, and let's hope that any crazy muslim extremist plots are thwarted before any bombs go off on 9/11/16.

[eyeball]

What about crazy western coalition plots, who do we look to when it comes to thwarting them?

Edited September 11, 2016 by eyeball

[sharkman]

September 11 is for the crazy muslim extremist plots, or are you that badly informed?

[eyeball]

The plot wasn't crazy at all. Bang for buck it was the most successful attack in the history of warfare, bar none.

The counter-attack on the other hand...

[GostHacked]

What about crazy western coalition plots, who do we look to when it comes to thwarting them?

I suspect you'll get a nothing but cricket sounds.

[sharkman]

The plot wasn't crazy at all. Bang for buck it was the most successful attack in the history of warfare, bar none.

The counter-attack on the other hand...

Huh? So typical of the conspiracy theorists who argue endlessly. You assume something that wasn't said, and employ a straw man at the same time. Just what is it that makes one strap on a bomb, I wonder?

[Guest]

The plot wasn't crazy at all. Bang for buck it was the most successful attack in the history of warfare, bar none.

The counter-attack on the other hand...

Nah, that would have been the Trojan Horse.

Edited September 11, 2016 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

Huh?

Is there something you missed or don't understand? I did try to keep my post short to avoid confusing you. Too many syllables perhaps?

So typical of the conspiracy theorists who argue endlessly. You assume something that wasn't said, and employ a straw man at the same time.

Really. Care to expand on that?

Just what is it that makes one strap on a bomb, I wonder?

Lots of things, anger, desperation, deluded beliefs. I'm sure there are more.

[Cum Laude]

Nah, that would have been the Trojan Horse.

You believe immigration will solve problems.

The economic benefits of mass immigration turn out to be an illusion while the costs are evident, and you seem to agree.

I am interested in the psychological reasons for such irrational behaviour. Political correctness has its origins in the US and is clearly a replacement rules for civilization, albeit with huge self contradictions and gross stupidity. Canadians may be the most politically correct people in the world, and things will only get worse for you.

I don’t think anyone has given an answer for exactly how PC took over, but I am convinced that its stubborn refusal to budge in the face of all the evidence on a whole range of issues can be explained only by extravert behaviour. The evidence is all around, but is most striking in political forums, including this one.

Nobody else seems to have noticed this.

[Guest]

You believe immigration will solve problems.

The economic benefits of mass immigration turn out to be an illusion while the costs are evident, and you seem to agree.

Those two sentences are at odds with each other, and neither has the slightest relevance to the statement you quoted.

You don't seem to have noticed this.