The Road to Damascus

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13238
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Kolohe » 16 Nov 2017, 22:49

Meh, once they slap a patch on the Keystone pipeline we'll be fine, economy wise.

The Arab armies are kinda shitty at fighting wars, and while the Iranians aren't that much better, they're good enough to hold their own in a home game.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14052
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Aresen » 17 Nov 2017, 00:31

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
16 Nov 2017, 19:33
It's cool that there seems to be a general war brewing in the Middle East. We won't get dragged into that, and it won't destroy the world economy for a decade.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11 ... elligence/
The Axis of Ishmael?
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22053
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Jennifer » 17 Nov 2017, 00:47

During the buildup to Iraq War 1, when I was living in southeastern Virginia (mostly military or NASA employees, but some old-time The South remnants, I remember the local newspaper ran an article about various local people who believed this was the runup to the war of Armageddon as predicted in the Bible (something about how Babylon is in Iraq).

That was nothing compared to what we'd get now if war broke out between Israel, Iran and the Saudis.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6829
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by fyodor » 17 Nov 2017, 00:58

Trying to apply an Orwellian joke to Israel fighting with Saudi Arabia....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13238
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Kolohe » 20 Nov 2017, 23:27


Single strike (four weapons) by @CJTFOIR on 8 Nov. marked fewest strikes/munitions dropped in the 3-year campaign to #defeatDaesh in Iraq and Syria.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15614
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by lunchstealer » 20 Nov 2017, 23:32

Well, at least they're recognizing that the A-10 is how you do CAS.

So pretty and so ugly and so pretty.

But still a shit show.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13238
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Kolohe » 20 Nov 2017, 23:44

I just think it's remarkable that we're running out of things to bomb.

Maybe that's why the Saudis are interested in stirring up shit.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

Dangerman
Posts: 6099
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Dangerman » 21 Nov 2017, 11:20

The Day the Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt Stood Still

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13238
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Kolohe » 24 Jan 2018, 09:38

when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14052
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Aresen » 24 Jan 2018, 10:19

Kolohe wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 09:38
I wrote something
Good article. What depresses me more than anything is that the majority of people seem perfectly content with getting into wars on no more than the whim of the House of Orange (or the predecessors.)
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 23780
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Warren » 24 Jan 2018, 11:14

Yes, I am clearly on the side of ‘no to the authorization of military force in the Levant’, but I am more interested in getting the correct political and legal framework behind any and all military interventions
That is of concern to me, but I'm more interested in finding a Mid East policy, or even guiding principles, that serves the peace and security of the US.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15614
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by lunchstealer » 24 Jan 2018, 12:21

Warren wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 11:14
Yes, I am clearly on the side of ‘no to the authorization of military force in the Levant’, but I am more interested in getting the correct political and legal framework behind any and all military interventions
That is of concern to me, but I'm more interested in finding a Mid East policy, or even guiding principles, that serves the peace and security of the US.
Is there any extent to which the latter is promoted by the former? Or does jingoism and hubris just mean that we'll always go full rubberstamp?
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 23780
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Warren » 24 Jan 2018, 12:25

lunchstealer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 12:21
Warren wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 11:14
Yes, I am clearly on the side of ‘no to the authorization of military force in the Levant’, but I am more interested in getting the correct political and legal framework behind any and all military interventions
That is of concern to me, but I'm more interested in finding a Mid East policy, or even guiding principles, that serves the peace and security of the US.
Is there any extent to which the latter is promoted by the former? Or does jingoism and hubris just mean that we'll always go full rubberstamp?
I don't understand what you're asking. Can you re-phrase the question?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15614
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by lunchstealer » 24 Jan 2018, 12:46

Warren wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 12:25
lunchstealer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 12:21
Warren wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 11:14
Yes, I am clearly on the side of ‘no to the authorization of military force in the Levant’, but I am more interested in getting the correct political and legal framework behind any and all military interventions
That is of concern to me, but I'm more interested in finding a Mid East policy, or even guiding principles, that serves the peace and security of the US.
Is there any extent to which the latter is promoted by the former? Or does jingoism and hubris just mean that we'll always go full rubberstamp?
I don't understand what you're asking. Can you re-phrase the question?
Kolohe's interest is in having an actual debate in Congress and in public before authorizing military use of force. Yours is in finding a sensible set of policies that serve the peace and security of the US.

I am wondering whether the Congressional and public debate would help or hinder your goal of policies better suited to the peace and security of the US.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 23780
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Warren » 24 Jan 2018, 13:23

lunchstealer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 12:46
Warren wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 12:25
lunchstealer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 12:21
Warren wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 11:14
Yes, I am clearly on the side of ‘no to the authorization of military force in the Levant’, but I am more interested in getting the correct political and legal framework behind any and all military interventions
That is of concern to me, but I'm more interested in finding a Mid East policy, or even guiding principles, that serves the peace and security of the US.
Is there any extent to which the latter is promoted by the former? Or does jingoism and hubris just mean that we'll always go full rubberstamp?
I don't understand what you're asking. Can you re-phrase the question?
Kolohe's interest is in having an actual debate in Congress and in public before authorizing military use of force. Yours is in finding a sensible set of policies that serve the peace and security of the US.

I am wondering whether the Congressional and public debate would help or hinder your goal of policies better suited to the peace and security of the US.
Ah. Probably not. Jingbrisstamp all the way down is where I'd put my money.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22053
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Jennifer » 24 Jan 2018, 13:30

After the US responded to the 9/11 terrorists by invading and wrecking a secularized country whose dictator was not even an ally of said terrorists, I pretty much gave up all hope of sensible, constitutional policy regarding US war games. And increasing technological improvements such as drones will only make matters worse--at least until such time as the technology improves so that other people can drone-bomb the US as easily as the US can drone-bomb other people.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11924
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Eric the .5b » 24 Jan 2018, 14:21

Jennifer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 13:30
After the US responded to the 9/11 terrorists by invading and wrecking a secularized country whose dictator was not even an ally of said terrorists, I pretty much gave up all hope of sensible, constitutional policy regarding US war games. And increasing technological improvements such as drones will only make matters worse--at least until such time as the technology improves so that other people can drone-bomb the US as easily as the US can drone-bomb other people.
That won't make things better.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22053
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Jennifer » 24 Jan 2018, 15:54

Eric the .5b wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 14:21
Jennifer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 13:30
After the US responded to the 9/11 terrorists by invading and wrecking a secularized country whose dictator was not even an ally of said terrorists, I pretty much gave up all hope of sensible, constitutional policy regarding US war games. And increasing technological improvements such as drones will only make matters worse--at least until such time as the technology improves so that other people can drone-bomb the US as easily as the US can drone-bomb other people.
That won't make things better.
Not from the perspective of ordinary Americans, not at all -- but, theoretically/maybe/best-case scenario, America the nation-state will scale back on some of the bully behavior toward other countries when it knows "No longer can I do whatever I want with relative impunity to people in those parts of the world, because those people can't hit back no matter what I do."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14052
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Aresen » 24 Jan 2018, 16:23

Jennifer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 15:54
Eric the .5b wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 14:21
Jennifer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 13:30
After the US responded to the 9/11 terrorists by invading and wrecking a secularized country whose dictator was not even an ally of said terrorists, I pretty much gave up all hope of sensible, constitutional policy regarding US war games. And increasing technological improvements such as drones will only make matters worse--at least until such time as the technology improves so that other people can drone-bomb the US as easily as the US can drone-bomb other people.
That won't make things better.
Not from the perspective of ordinary Americans, not at all -- but, theoretically/maybe/best-case scenario, America the nation-state will scale back on some of the bully behavior toward other countries when it knows "No longer can I do whatever I want with relative impunity to people in those parts of the world, because those people can't hit back no matter what I do."
My money is on the French saying:
C'est un bête vicieux, quand je l'attaque, il se defend.
("It's a vicious beast, when I attack it, it defends itself.")

IOW, if someone had the audacity to strike back, the jingoists would double down. (Remember the uproar over Ron Paul's 'blowback' comment?)
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14052
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Aresen » 24 Jan 2018, 16:24

Warren wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 13:23
lunchstealer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 12:46
Warren wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 12:25
lunchstealer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 12:21
Warren wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 11:14
Yes, I am clearly on the side of ‘no to the authorization of military force in the Levant’, but I am more interested in getting the correct political and legal framework behind any and all military interventions
That is of concern to me, but I'm more interested in finding a Mid East policy, or even guiding principles, that serves the peace and security of the US.
Is there any extent to which the latter is promoted by the former? Or does jingoism and hubris just mean that we'll always go full rubberstamp?
I don't understand what you're asking. Can you re-phrase the question?
Kolohe's interest is in having an actual debate in Congress and in public before authorizing military use of force. Yours is in finding a sensible set of policies that serve the peace and security of the US.

I am wondering whether the Congressional and public debate would help or hinder your goal of policies better suited to the peace and security of the US.
Ah. Probably not. Jingbrisstamp all the way down is where I'd put my money.
Probably, but at least there would be opportunity for a few sane voices to object.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11924
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Eric the .5b » 25 Jan 2018, 15:52

Jennifer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 15:54
Eric the .5b wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 14:21
Jennifer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 13:30
After the US responded to the 9/11 terrorists by invading and wrecking a secularized country whose dictator was not even an ally of said terrorists, I pretty much gave up all hope of sensible, constitutional policy regarding US war games. And increasing technological improvements such as drones will only make matters worse--at least until such time as the technology improves so that other people can drone-bomb the US as easily as the US can drone-bomb other people.
That won't make things better.
Not from the perspective of ordinary Americans, not at all -- but, theoretically/maybe/best-case scenario, America the nation-state will scale back on some of the bully behavior toward other countries when it knows "No longer can I do whatever I want with relative impunity to people in those parts of the world, because those people can't hit back no matter what I do."
That's an extreme best-case scenario, one that looks incompatible with history and any country's foreign policy. If drones could work as deterrents, IEDs would, too.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11924
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Eric the .5b » 25 Jan 2018, 15:54

Aresen wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 16:24
Probably, but at least there would be opportunity for a few sane voices to object.
When isn't there an opportunity for a few sane voices to object?

The problem is that, by definition, a few sane voices don't matter.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22053
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Jennifer » 25 Jan 2018, 17:29

Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Jan 2018, 15:52
Jennifer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 15:54
Eric the .5b wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 14:21
Jennifer wrote:
24 Jan 2018, 13:30
After the US responded to the 9/11 terrorists by invading and wrecking a secularized country whose dictator was not even an ally of said terrorists, I pretty much gave up all hope of sensible, constitutional policy regarding US war games. And increasing technological improvements such as drones will only make matters worse--at least until such time as the technology improves so that other people can drone-bomb the US as easily as the US can drone-bomb other people.
That won't make things better.
Not from the perspective of ordinary Americans, not at all -- but, theoretically/maybe/best-case scenario, America the nation-state will scale back on some of the bully behavior toward other countries when it knows "No longer can I do whatever I want with relative impunity to people in those parts of the world, because those people can't hit back no matter what I do."
That's an extreme best-case scenario, one that looks incompatible with history and any country's foreign policy. If drones could work as deterrents, IEDs would, too.
Drones would be different, though. I'm having difficulty putting my finger precisely on the variable (pre-emptive excuse: I have a slight fever AND I am on four different prescription meds, three of which have warnings about driving and operating machinery and etc.) -- but the thing about America's bullying policies thus far is: they do not directly effect ordinary Americans, unless said Americans damned well want it to (specifically, if said American joins the military, or works for some other organization requiring you to leave the US and go to a country where IEDs are a thing). Whatever horrible things America does or is doing to people in places like Yemen or Pakistan or whatever, I personally have pretty much zero worry those people or their loved ones will be able to turn around and do something similar to me and mine. Right now, people in Pakistan's or Yemen's or Bumfuckistan's equivalent of DeKalb County, Georgia need to worry about having their homes or jobs bombed, but me and my neighbors in the actual DCG have close to zero need to worry about facing the same thing. Nor had I any fear of my wedding being bombed, the way their weddings and wedding parties get bombed.

Right now, kill-drone technology is still limited and expensive enough that realistically, you need the wealth and resources of a nation-state's military behind you -- or at least the wealth and resources of someone FAR richer than average, similar to how Bin Laden came from a family of multimillionaires -- if you want to use them to fuck with people on completely different continents than you. It's not yet democratized like computers and the Internet, where you don't need "military-grade wealth and resources and support" to fuck with people on the opposite side of the world: provided you have the skills and knowledge to be a hacker, any ordinary off-the-shelf computer or Internet-connected device will do.

As for IEDs -- those "only" hurt military people who are in countries not-their-own; they're a way for people in occupied countries to strike back at the military occupiers themselves. But you can't use IEDs to strike back against the occupiers' home countries, though: they can fuck with Americans in Afghanistan, not with Americans in America.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11924
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Eric the .5b » 25 Jan 2018, 18:05

Jennifer, how well did 9/11 deter us against attacking anyone? How well did IRA bombings in London deter the Brits from marching troops and APCs around Northern Ireland?

Drone strikes on the US would work about as well, leaving the public a familiar mixture of terrified and bloodthirsty. Hell, if an identifiable foreign government carried out an airstrike on the US, I'd want retaliation, too.

(Which takes us back to what it is in the first place: just a type of airstrike. And there are lots of counties that could in theory carry out an airstrike on American soil today. They'd just hit our defenses and/or our retaliation.)
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 23780
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: The Road to Damascus

Post by Warren » 25 Jan 2018, 18:22

Nuclear weapons. If you want insurance that the USofA isn't going to erase your social order because it's on the rag this week, you detonate a nuke. That's it. That is the only thing that will deter American FUTW military intervention. And it will absolutely do that. We might fuck with you some other way, but we're not going to rain death from the skies and we damned sure aren't going to invade you.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests