Trump for the win!

[hopefultiger13]

I've come to the conclusion that the absolute WRONG thing to do in situations like this is to permanently move the 'victims." Then the 'bad guys' take over more territory. To me, it's like if your roof is leaking so you decide that the fix is to move your couch.

I'm near the point of it should just be a simple mandate:

"You ass-brains stay on this side, and you ass-brains stay on that side. If either of you ass-clowns decides to cross this line, your capital city gets glassed."

If only things were that simple. And in that case, somebody's gotta monitor the line.

(For the record, the above solution is apparently similar to what Al-Assad and Hussein did. And while neither of these guys is to be admired and they were both ass-heads, it did work for the most part........)

I've got no answers for you brother.

You bring up a pretty good point. We can all agree that Al-Assad and Hussein (and I'd add that Tito guy from what used to be Yugoslovia as an even better example) are really bad guys. BUT they had relative peace in their countries by saying exactly what you mention above. You stay here and you stay here. If I have to come and settle you guys down, I'm just going to kill enough people to MAKE you settle down. If that means I have to kill you all, I can do that too. Don't make me come back over there...

The problem is, when someone stops monitoring the line as you say, it goes back to the same old same old. What's the real solution? I honestly have no idea.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Spain denied US F-111s the right to fly over their airspace for the attack on Libya in 1986.

I don't think England provided troops for the invasion of Iraq (although that decision is at worst questionable as the whole Iraq thing was a mess).

Not sure either qualify for what you are saying.

We all spy on each other. The Brits, French (non-NATO but an ally), Russians, Germans, Israelis, etc - all spy on us. And we spy on them. And all of us fvck around in each other's elections. Usually not blatantly ("ballot box stuffing") but giving support - often surreptitiously - to candidates that favor our views.

Heh. I actually thought of both your examples before I posted as they are pretty obvious examples of at least TENSION in NATO. My feeling on this is that NATO is kind of like a big family. The members are all part of the family, but we squabble and fight and to a certain extent screw each other over in petty ways. BUT when the shiit hits the fan, we have each other's back.

Both these examples are the US conducting offensive operations (for good or ill). NATO is all about protecting ourselves (mutual defense). I don't think it means that any NATO country is required to support it's members in matters they don't agree with unless there is an attack on a NATO member's country. FWIW, the UK did actually support the Iraq War. Here's the vote supporting the US invasion:

click

and here's the military end of things:

click

France and Germany (both of which had MUCH friendlier relations with Iraq) refused to support the US invasion b/c they did not believe that Iraq had developed WMDs. A position that turned out to be correct as not a single biological or nuclear weapon was ever found.

Your point is well taken however. NATO is not a close alliance where we all move in lock step. It's a loose mutual defense alliance set up to protect against Russian/Warsaw pact aggression. Whether the alliance is useful or not NOW is debatable.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Honestly - I think you're right. It just doesn't feel that way though.

It surely doesn't brother... Seems like NOTHING is easy these days. Hell, you can get in trouble using "he" and "she". I just blunder on and try to do the best I can.

 

[CU Alumnus]

Heh. I actually thought of both your examples before I posted as they are pretty obvious examples of at least TENSION in NATO. My feeling on this is that NATO is kind of like a big family. The members are all part of the family, but we squabble and fight and to a certain extent screw each other over in petty ways. BUT when the shiit hits the fan, we have each other's back.

Both these examples are the US conducting offensive operations (for good or ill). NATO is all about protecting ourselves (mutual defense). I don't think it means that any NATO country is required to support it's members in matters they don't agree with unless there is an attack on a NATO member's country. FWIW, the UK did actually support the Iraq War. Here's the vote supporting the US invasion:

click

and here's the military end of things:

click

France and Germany (both of which had MUCH friendlier relations with Iraq) refused to support the US invasion b/c they did not believe that Iraq had developed WMDs. A position that turned out to be correct as not a single biological or nuclear weapon was ever found.

Your point is well taken however. NATO is not a close alliance where we all move in lock step. It's a loose mutual defense alliance set up to protect against Russian/Warsaw pact aggression. Whether the alliance is useful or not NOW is debatable.

Well - crap. I could've sworn England stayed out of Iraq. Guess I shoulda fact-checked myself. But Germany kinda still makes the point I was trying to make I guess. Though I still question of those WMDs were moved out of Iraq before we invaded (I've heard that theory but I don't know where from or what evidence actually supported it). I don't know. As I recall, they knew were were coming for months before we actually invaded.

Honestly - even if they had them I don't think I would have invaded them over it - if for no other reason we were in Afghanistan and a two-front war never seems to work out well. I think Iraq was better served with the occasional "bitch slap" than destroying them completely.

As to NATO - overall, I find NATO more palatable than the UN. IMO the UN is a great place for hipocracy and bullcrap. But do they actually DO anything? I mean, other than raping women and children they are supposed to be protecting....

https://www.whistleblower.org/in-the-news/bloomberg-un-peacekeepers-rape-scandal-gets-worse/

 

[hopefultiger13]

Well - crap. I could've sworn England stayed out of Iraq. Guess I shoulda fact-checked myself. But Germany kinda still makes the point I was trying to make I guess. Though I still question of those WMDs were moved out of Iraq before we invaded (I've heard that theory but I don't know where from). I don't know. As I recall, they knew were were coming for months before we actually invaded.

Honestly - even if they had them I don't think I would have invaded them over it - if for no other reason we were in Afghanistan and a two-front war never seems to work out well. I think Iraq was better served with the occasional "bitch slap" than destroying them completely.

Overall - I find NATO more palatable than the UN. IMO the UN is a great place for hipocracy and bullcrap. But do they actually DO anything? I mean, other than raping women and children they are supposed to be protecting....

https://www.whistleblower.org/in-the-news/bloomberg-un-peacekeepers-rape-scandal-gets-worse/

No worries. I work at a University and I will absolutely get drilled if I can't back my statements up. So I'm a freak about referencing stuff. It's a real case of "this isn't you, it's me". I'm well aware of the freakishness of my actions...

I absolutely agree that the Germany/France refusal to join the war makes your point. I heard that theory on the WMD as well. The rumor is that they were all moved to Syria. I have no idea. On the surface, this seems silly as Syria and Iran are pretty close allies and Iraq and Iran were definitely NOT friendly under Hussain. BUT war makes people do crazy things... Case in point, during the gulf war, Iraq pilots DID fly their older versions of the F14 into Iran to keep them from getting shot down. Iran of course kept them. So there you go...

Bottom line though is that none were found, nor were the facilities for making them. Chemical weapons facilities could be pretty easily hidden/retooled as a lot of really nasty weapons aren't that different from bug spray and other "household" chemicals. Biological and Nuclear on the other hand are a different animal. So while it seems more likely that the whole WMD thing was a hoax, I wouldn't call it a certainty.

 

[CU Alumnus]

No worries. I work at a University and I will absolutely get drilled if I can't back my statements up. So I'm a freak about referencing stuff. It's a real case of "this isn't you, it's me". I'm well aware of the freakishness of my actions...

I absolutely agree that the Germany/France refusal to join the war makes your point. I heard that theory on the WMD as well. The rumor is that they were all moved to Syria. I have no idea. On the surface, this seems silly as Syria and Iran are pretty close allies and Iraq and Iran were definitely NOT friendly under Hussain. BUT war makes people do crazy things... Case in point, during the gulf war, Iraq pilots DID fly their older versions of the F14 into Iran to keep them from getting shot down. Iran of course kept them. So there you go...

Bottom line though is that none were found, nor were the facilities for making them. Chemical weapons facilities could be pretty easily hidden/retooled as a lot of really nasty weapons aren't that different from bug spray and other "household" chemicals. Biological and Nuclear on the other hand are a different animal. So while it seems more likely that the whole WMD thing was a hoax, I wouldn't call it a certainty.

The bad thing is I usually fact-check anything I post. But I missed that one. Oh well.

As far as the weapons in Iraq - I certainly wouldn't claim that anywhere other than an internet board without backup. And even here, I'm only claiming I heard it, not that it is true. And it was sketchy - no idea if true. Maybe they disguised the factory as a cookie factory:

.

Interesting on the F14s. I thought Iran was the only country that ever bought the F14, and they were hampered because they couldn't get spare parts and when the coup happened, the Grumman techs sabotaged a lot of the planes before they left (supposedly).

 

[hopefultiger13]

On the F14 thing above. Here's my source for that. Not ideal as it's Media based (tertiary source), but is probably accurate as the Wall Street Journal is listed as:

Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting in combination with a strongly right biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High, due to anti-climate, anti-science stances and occasional misleading editorials.

On medial bias/fact check. I'm too lazy to do a real search.

Click

 

[FLOtiger93]

our allies have been stabbing us in the back since world war 2.

Wasn’t it right about this time that we became the most dominant country in the world?

If our allies have been stabbing us in the back for this long and our government has become a massively corrupt “swamp” then I guess America actually wasn’t great. Well until Trump became president.

 

[appalachiatiger]

we are not great yet, but trump is working on it.

since ww2, we have each lost a tremendous amount of wealth.

he is the first president trying to stop the bleeding of wealth.

what was the dollar worth in 1949 versus 2019, 50 years laters.

could you imagine how wealthy we would be right now if our dollar held the same value.

 

[CU Alumnus]

On the F14 thing above. Here's my source for that. Not ideal as it's Media based (tertiary source), but is probably accurate as the Wall Street Journal is listed as:

Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting in combination with a strongly right biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High, due to anti-climate, anti-science stances and occasional misleading editorials.

On medial bias/fact check. I'm too lazy to do a real search.

Click

Article is blocked and I'm not buying a subscription.

Not that it matters to the main thrust of the conversation but from what I can find, it appears that the only country to ever buy the F14 outside of the US was indeed Iran. If Iraq had some, they stole them. Iraq typically bought Soviet aircraft. That, or when the coup happened some Iranian F14s went to Iraq for a safe landing to escape. I see no mention of it anywhere but that doesn't mean anything.

Perhaps they were Mig-23s? The Mig-23 is a swing-wing fighter that may bear a slight resemblance to the F14.

F14 was primarily a shipborn fighter - obviously it can operate off of a land base but it has a lot of features to make it able to fly from and land on a ship. Those add weight, complexity, and cost to the design and I would be surprised if anyone who doesn't use it on a carrier would buy them. In fact the primary reason the US retired the F14 is because the airframes were getting worn out due to all of the catapult launches and landings.

I'm not doubting that the Iraqi pilots fled to Iran - what I'm doubting is that they were flying F14s.

Speaking of naval aviation - it turns out that through another board I know a guy who broke a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

Twice.

Damn. That's impressive.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Article is blocked and I'm not buying a subscription.

Not that it matters to the main thrust of the conversation but from what I can find, it appears that the only country to ever buy the F14 outside of the US was indeed Iran. If Iraq had some, they stole them. Iraq typically bought Soviet aircraft. That, or when the coup happened some Iranian F14s went to Iraq for a safe landing to escape. I see no mention of it anywhere but that doesn't mean anything.

Perhaps they were Mig-23s? The Mig-23 is a swing-wing fighter that may bear a slight resemblance to the F14.

F14 was primarily a shipborn fighter - obviously it can operate off of a land base but it has a lot of features to make it able to fly from and land on a ship. Those add weight, complexity, and cost to the design and I would be surprised if anyone who doesn't use it on a carrier would buy them. In fact the primary reason the US retired the F14 is because the airframes were getting worn out due to all of the catapult launches and landings.

I'm not doubting that the Iraqi pilots fled to Iran - what I'm doubting is that they were flying F14s.

That's so weird. I'm blocked now as well. I certainly don't have a subscription either.

I could have sworn that article mentioned F14s, but after just a bit of research on my part, I can't find any confirmation of that which makes me wonder if I read it wrong. Frankly, I don't care enough to buy a subscription just to confirm it or not. I'm going to concede your point. From an intellectual perspective, it makes no sense that Iraq would be using a bunch of US equipment, much less the F14.anyway.

 

[CU Alumnus]

That's so weird. I'm blocked now as well. I certainly don't have a subscription either.

I could have sworn that article mentioned F14s, but after just a bit of research on my part, I can't find any confirmation of that which makes me wonder if I read it wrong. Frankly, I don't care enough to buy a subscription just to confirm it or not. I'm going to concede your point. From an intellectual perspective, it makes no sense that Iraq would be using a bunch of US equipment, much less the F14.anyway.

The type of plane doesn't matter much to the story. I only noticed it because a) as a kid, I was big into planes, especially fighters, and b) I thought maybe it got twisted because I knew Iran did buy the F14.

Checking with some guys who would probably know, it appears it may have been F16s, not F14s. These were sold to Iraq when they were an ally, before they were an enemy, before they were an ally (which happened because Iran became an enemy). Apparently, when Iran was an ally before they became an enemy, we sold them some F16s. We took their money, but when the revolution happened we said "on second thought.......you can't have these." So when Hussein flew some F16s to Iran before Gulf War 1, Iran kept them.

And who says the politics of the middle east are complicated?

 

[appalachiatiger]

The type of plane doesn't matter much to the story. I only noticed it because a) as a kid, I was big into planes, especially fighters, and b) I thought maybe it got twisted because I knew Iran did buy the F14.

Checking with some guys who would probably know, it appears it may have been F16s, not F14s. These were sold to Iraq when they were an ally, before they were an enemy, before they were an ally (which happened because Iran became an enemy). Apparently, when Iran was an ally before they became an enemy, we sold them some F16s. We took their money, but when the revolution happened we said "on second thought.......you can't have these." So when Hussein flew some F16s to Iran before Gulf War 1, Iran kept them.

And who says the politics of the middle east are complicated?

maybe f1 mirages?

 

[CU Alumnus]

maybe f1 mirages?

Maybe some of them but I'm pretty sure the planes in the incident that @hopefultiger13 is talking about were F-16s.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Maybe some of them but I'm pretty sure the planes in the incident that @hopefultiger13 is talking about were F-16s.

I'm going to bow out on the planes thing now. I remembered something about it when @CU Alumnus were discussing the UK and the Iraq war and WMDs. I did look it up and found a Wall Street Journal article about it that I could have sworn mentioned F14s. But as he pointed out, the article is now blocked unless you are a subscriber. I did a small amount of research over about 10 minutes to see if I could come up with another source, but was not able to. Here's a pretty detailed article on the Iraqi air force and it NEVER mentions the F14 at all.

Clicky

For a guy that prides himself on thinking before he posts and sourcing his opinions with factual information, this is pretty humbling. I see no evidence that Iraq EVER had F14s.

 

[CU Alumnus]

I'm going to bow out on the planes thing now. I remembered something about it when @CU Alumnus were discussing the UK and the Iraq war and WMDs. I did look it up and found a Wall Street Journal article about it that I could have sworn mentioned F14s. But as he pointed out, the article is now blocked unless you are a subscriber. I did a small amount of research over about 10 minutes to see if I could come up with another source, but was not able to. Here's a pretty detailed article on the Iraqi air force and it NEVER mentions the F14 at all.

Clicky

For a guy that prides himself on thinking before he posts and sourcing his opinions with factual information, this is pretty humbling. I see no evidence that Iraq EVER had F14s.

Most people wouldn't know the difference in the two planes anyway (though they do look different). I just found it interesting but it's not germane to the point. Iraq did hide weapons in Iran and other countries. This means that it is possible they did it again, but it does not serve as proof they did.

I didn't know that Iran took and kept anything from Iraq, so I learned something.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Most people wouldn't know the difference in the two planes anyway (though they do look different). I just found it interesting but it's not germane to the point. Iraq did hide weapons in Iran and other countries. This means that it is possible they did it again, but it does not serve as proof they did.

I didn't know that Iran took and kept anything from Iraq, so I learned something.

I definitely learned something too. As I recall (again too lazy to look it up) the F14 was a twin engine twin tailed fighter two person jet primarily produced for the Navy (Carrier Duty). It could carry a variety of ordinance, but was designed primarily to carry a whole shit ton of medium to long range air to air ordinance for shooting down planes and incoming cruse missiles

The F-16 on the other hand was primarily produced for the air force as an all purpose fighter. Single engine, single tail, single pilot (although there may be two seater versions with some of the electronic warfare birds). Much smaller than the F14 (and F15). An excellent dog fighter and air defense platform, but more than capable of carrying a variety of air to ground ordinance. I'm pretty sure that it was designed to be fast, agile (dog fighter) and cheap compared to the F14/F15 air superiority fighters.

 

[appalachiatiger]

ok so we got this "buffer zone" within the borders of syria, that we have nad a few hundred soldiers stationed there.

its a 20 mile strip of syrian soil. the turks wanna hold on that land and the syrians want it back.

its suppose to hold a bunch of value under the ground.

wouldnt it be a more strategic "buffer zone" of "american security" to station our troops on a 20mile strip into Mexico?

seems a border buffer zone here would help us more than a buffer zone on syrian soil.

 

[hopefultiger13]

ok so we got this "buffer zone" within the borders of syria, that we have nad a few hundred soldiers stationed there.

its a 20 mile strip of syrian soil. the turks wanna hold on that land and the syrians want it back.

its suppose to hold a bunch of value under the ground.

wouldnt it be a more strategic "buffer zone" of "american security" to station our troops on a 20mile strip into Mexico?

seems a border buffer zone here would help us more than a buffer zone on syrian soil.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say... The buffer zone in Turkey is of absolutely NO value to the US as such. The only reason that border zone exists is to prevent the Turkish militias and the Kurds from killing each other. Since we are allies of both, neither side was willing to violate that zone. And make no mistake, there were NEVER enough troops there to actually DO anything, it was just symbolic, but effective.

Here's a brief primer on Turk/Kurdish history: Click

Nothing really to see, just another example of two groups trying to kill each other off for most of the last 1000 years. The Turks seem to be somewhat better at it overall.

On the US border zone. So let me get this straight. You propose taking a strip of Mexico almost 2000 miles long and 20 miles wide and using the military to occupy it? This seems very nearly as brilliant as your proposal to move 35 million Kurds to Europe. Political issues aside (and invading Mexico just might cause a FEW Problems). Let's say that a platoon of combat troops can patrol a strip of that 20 mile zone That's one mile wide. That seems wildly optimistic to me, but let's say it can be done. And what the hell... Let's say this platoon can keep that up 24/7/365 without ever stopping or needing any help. That's over 100,000 troops or about 1/5 of the active Army/Marines total forces. That doesn't seem like a reasonable expense to me...

Remember, illegal immigrants commit crime at a 75% lesser rate than US citizens AND over 90%+ of drugs come into the us from Ports of entry NOT illegals carrying it in (despite what Trump tells you to believe). Those are FBI numbers.

As for security, I can't recall a case of a terrorist ever coming across the border from Mexico. Didn't all the 911 guys come to the US legally. Let me know if I'm wrong here.

 

[CU Alumnus]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say... The buffer zone in Turkey is of absolutely NO value to the US as such. The only reason that border zone exists is to prevent the Turkish militias and the Kurds from killing each other. Since we are allies of both, neither side was willing to violate that zone. And make no mistake, there were NEVER enough troops there to actually DO anything, it was just symbolic, but effective.

Here's a brief primer on Turk/Kurdish history: Click

Nothing really to see, just another example of two groups trying to kill each other off for most of the last 1000 years. The Turks seem to be somewhat better at it overall.

On the US border zone. So let me get this straight. You propose taking a strip of Mexico almost 2000 miles long and 20 miles wide and using the military to occupy it? This seems very nearly as brilliant as your proposal to move 35 million Kurds to Europe. Political issues aside (and invading Mexico just might cause a FEW Problems). Let's say that a platoon of combat troops can patrol a strip of that 20 mile zone That's one mile wide. That seems wildly optimistic to me, but let's say it can be done. And what the hell... Let's say this platoon can keep that up 24/7/365 without ever stopping or needing any help. That's over 100,000 troops or about 1/5 of the active Army/Marines total forces. That doesn't seem like a reasonable expense to me...

Remember, illegal immigrants commit crime at a 75% lesser rate than US citizens AND over 90%+ of drugs come into the us from Ports of entry NOT illegals carrying it in (despite what Trump tells you to believe). Those are FBI numbers.

As for security, I can't recall a case of a terrorist ever coming across the border from Mexico. Didn't all the 911 guys come to the US legally. Let me know if I'm wrong here.

I think the troops in that area were likely advisors and probably some special ops guys. Beyond that, it likely kinda comes down to "If you kill one of these 50, you'll have 50,000 here tomorrow with itchy trigger fingers."

As far as the southern border, I think it needs to be secured simply because a sovereign nation needs to have control of it's borders. That doesn't mean nobody gets in, or that no "brown people" can come in, or that we throw all of the "brown people" out (even though the dems would have you believe that the two concepts are linked). It simply means we control it. A physical wall won't work everywhere - sensors and patrols may work better in some areas. There are natural barriers and man-made ones (the All-American Canal is one) that are also effective.

But I wouldn't put troops down there. Troops aren't trained to handle non-lethal threats that must be managed. People who come across but need to either be arrested and sent back, or taken into custody. You'd be putting them in a bad position.

 

[appalachiatiger]

​

Anti-Trump Rep. Schiff’s Secret Impeachment Hearings Are a Witch Hunt in a Fantasyland

“Rep. Adam Schiff, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leftists who are attacking President Trump – and by extension everyone who voted for and supports him – have managed to sink to a new low. On the scale of credibility, they are a minus-10. If they yelled fire, you would stay seated,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) writes for Fox News.

So far, according to Rep. Biggs, Rep. Schiff or members of his staff have:

• Held impeachment hearings behind closed doors
• Met with the “whistleblower”beforea complaint was filed
• Not followed the rules of the House of Representatives
• Excluded some members of the House from sitting in on proceedings
• Now said that the whistleblower will not even be called to testify

You can’t make it up: “Schiff excuses his misconduct, claiming Republicans will attempt to manipulate the narrative if his impeachment inquiry hearings were public.”

Click here to read more.

President Donald J. Trump travels to Texas tomorrow for the opening of a new Louis Vuitton factory, where he will be joined by CEO Bernard Arnault, Rosemary Feitelberg reports forWWD. “The plan is to create 1,000 jobs in the next five years at the facility near Keene, Tex.,” which comes as part of the President’s Pledge to America’s Workers.

“After a championship parade, a Stanley Cup Tour around the world, a ring ceremony, a Hockey Hall of Fame visit and a banner-raising on Opening Night, only one more celebration remained for the Stanley Cup Champion St. Louis Blues, and that was a visit to the White House,” Chris Pinkert writes forNHL.com.

In 60 seconds:Watch President Trump welcome the 2019 Stanley Cup champions!

“For years, unelected bureaucrats have been allowed largely unchecked power over the daily lives of Americans. This president is trying to change that,” Rachel Bovard writes inUSA Today.With new executive action, the Administration is making sure “ordinary Americans have the ability to challenge the government’s determination against them.”