Trump trying to pull out of Syria, and reduce presence in Afghanistan

[Karha of Honor]

it's a giant country with a lot of people. When i think of a potent threat i think of one that can take over a state or an US city.

That was the attitude before 9/11 which effectively wrecked American institutions, economics, political standing, and its image of itself.

And before Pearl Harbor, people believed the same about Japan. It was a Chinese problem.

And the South is on their side of the Mason-Dixie line.

And so on and so on.

911 did not wrech anything. The US was perfectly functional after that. the market sentiment was idiotic. The circumstances did not force that overreaction.

[CharlesPhipps]

it's a giant country with a lot of people. When i think of a potent threat i think of one that can take over a state or an US city.

That was the attitude before 9/11 which effectively wrecked American institutions, economics, political standing, and its image of itself.

And before Pearl Harbor, people believed the same about Japan. It was a Chinese problem.

And the South is on their side of the Mason-Dixie line.

And so on and so on.

911 did not wrech anything. The US was perfectly functional after that. the market sentiment was idiotic. The circumstances did not force that overreaction.

Given the massive changes to people's lives and deaths and war and international changes I'm going to leave this conversation now.

[Karha of Honor]

it's a giant country with a lot of people. When i think of a potent threat i think of one that can take over a state or an US city.

That was the attitude before 9/11 which effectively wrecked American institutions, economics, political standing, and its image of itself.

And before Pearl Harbor, people believed the same about Japan. It was a Chinese problem.

And the South is on their side of the Mason-Dixie line.

And so on and so on.

911 did not wrech anything. The US was perfectly functional after that. the market sentiment was idiotic. The circumstances did not force that overreaction.

Given the massive changes to people's lives and deaths and war and international changes I'm going to leave this conversation now.

Thanks to a government and media that wanted those changes real bad anyways.

[Yukaphile]

Provide order in the same way the USSR did in WWII? Putin is very like the old Soviet dictators. He's just itching for a chance to commit new crimes against humanity like he's doing back in his own country. It's why I'm convinced that man wouldn't lose sleep at night if he nuked a city. He's evil.

[Karha of Honor]

Provide order in the same way the USSR did in WWII? Putin is very like the old Soviet dictators. He's just itching for a chance to commit new crimes against humanity like he's doing back in his own country. It's why I'm convinced that man wouldn't lose sleep at night if he nuked a city. He's evil.

Got sources to back this up besides old Cold War instincsts and shit?

[Yukaphile]

He's murdering journalists in his own country. Think a guy like that will care about nuking a city? I don't. Plus history has also shown that whenever a region invades or interferes with another region, they just destabilize it. We did it to create ISIS. They'll do it again. Especially with a religious hot zone like the Middle East. How did George Carlin put it. "Ancient hatreds and modern weapons."

[Karha of Honor]

He's murdering journalists in his own country. Think a guy like that will care about nuking a city? I don't. Plus history has also shown that whenever a region invades or interferes with another region, they just destabilize it. We did it to create ISIS. They'll do it again. Especially with a religious hot zone like the Middle East. How did George Carlin put it. "Ancient hatreds and modern weapons."

Got cleAR PROOF? FUCKED UP SHIT HAPPENS In a giant country with lots of oligarchs.

[Darth Wedgius]

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

If neoconservatism is hawkish conservatism, I agree. Bush famously didn't want to do"nation-building," then tried it anyway, with limited success and at very high cost. You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan, but I think it's not something most conservatives are leaning towards nowadays.

Plenty. You spend 20000 on an informant, the raid might cost 20 million or somehting and you killed Bin Laden.

But it would still have left Al Qaeda with an area to operate freely from. They were allies with the Taliban, and the Taliban ran Afghanistan.

Like you can ever truly plant your flag in a region like that with ever shifting tribal alliances.

True enough, but whatever comes up probably won't be as bad for us as Al Qaeda. They don't have to like us, they just have to not try to kill us in large numbers.

Whoever runs it is fairly impotent against the US.

Relatively speaking, yes, so far. We lost about 3000 people in 9/11, and over 42,000 killed that year in traffic accidents. But I'd like to avoid another 9/11 just the same. And it gets easier and easier to build a nuke, get it into a harbor on a freighter...

[Karha of Honor]

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

If neoconservatism is hawkish conservatism, I agree. Bush famously didn't want to do"nation-building," then tried it anyway, with limited success and at very high cost. You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan, but I think it's not something most conservatives are leaning towards nowadays.

Plenty. You spend 20000 on an informant, the raid might cost 20 million or somehting and you killed Bin Laden.

But it would still have left Al Qaeda with an area to operate freely from. They were allies with the Taliban, and the Taliban ran Afghanistan.

Like you can ever truly plant your flag in a region like that with ever shifting tribal alliances.

True enough, but whatever comes up probably won't be as bad for us as Al Qaeda. They don't have to like us, they just have to not try to kill us in large numbers.

Whoever runs it is fairly impotent against the US.

Relatively speaking, yes, so far. We lost about 3000 people in 9/11, and over 42,000 killed that year in traffic accidents. But I'd like to avoid another 9/11 just the same. And it gets easier and easier to build a nuke, get it into a harbor on a freighter...

And someone pretneding to be an US ally cannot do that?

[Darth Wedgius]

I think neoconservatism is kinda dorment post Bush administration.

If neoconservatism is hawkish conservatism, I agree. Bush famously didn't want to do"nation-building," then tried it anyway, with limited success and at very high cost. You might wonder what alternative he had, at least in Afghanistan, but I think it's not something most conservatives are leaning towards nowadays.

Plenty. You spend 20000 on an informant, the raid might cost 20 million or somehting and you killed Bin Laden.

But it would still have left Al Qaeda with an area to operate freely from. They were allies with the Taliban, and the Taliban ran Afghanistan.

Like you can ever truly plant your flag in a region like that with ever shifting tribal alliances.

True enough, but whatever comes up probably won't be as bad for us as Al Qaeda. They don't have to like us, they just have to not try to kill us in large numbers.

Whoever runs it is fairly impotent against the US.

Relatively speaking, yes, so far. We lost about 3000 people in 9/11, and over 42,000 killed that year in traffic accidents. But I'd like to avoid another 9/11 just the same. And it gets easier and easier to build a nuke, get it into a harbor on a freighter...

And someone pretneding to be an US ally cannot do that?

Yes, but when you walk down a street do you worry about everyone equally, or are you more concerned about the guy shouting that they want more people to help beat you up?