71–75 of 75 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet the only one who sent US troops in war and partly responsible for the power vacuum which allowed ISIS to gain power is Clinton. Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person.
You meant "Trump" in your last sentence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they don't believe you'll actually do it over some small matter (say, a proxy takeover in a minor ally power), so they call your bluff. It makes it easy to chip away at your defenses, where every bite is so small that it would be insane to respond with a nuclear attack.
> a proxy takeover in a minor ally power That sounds more like "How can we maintain a sphere of influence and a de facto empire" rather than "How can we ensure the nation is defended from attack." National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't. Spheres of influence are fuzzy, and indeed fuzzy claims are susceptible to gradualist takeovers. I agree that a large conventional military…
See Russia-Ukraine war. "Uprising" starts using weapons made in Russia. They say it's not them. Do you nuke them over it?
How about later, when they carved out the part they like, and admit it was them all along, but promise "we won't go further". Do you nuke them?
How about when they formally annex that part?
It's called salami tactics, and it unfortunately works. That's why you need conventional army to defend. Well, at least if you live in a region with 19th century-style empire wannabe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't link to The Young Turks. They're on par with Fox News even if they're politically on the opposite end of the spectrum. Again: we know Clinton's stance on war and the Middle East, Russia and China. Clinton already holds a lot of political power in the US (just look at her campaign's biggest sponsors and the Clinton Foundation -- plus the entire thing with her having been the de facto blessed Democrat cand…
http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV I'll call your attention to "Should the US formally declare war on ISIS?"
There are no "boots on the ground" in Syria as per policy, but there are American soldiers wearing boots engaging in combat activity in war zones in Syria on the ground. Except as they're not officially "boots on the ground" everybody likes to pretend the US isn't actually involved in Syria yet.
And when it comes to the decision whether to actually send humans who risk their lives and will be held accountable if they screw up, or to just continue drone strikes or bombing raids with no public accountability unless a military plane is downed -- I will prefer boots on the ground any day. War is hell. Drone war just allows one party to distance itself from the hell it is engaging in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a proxy takeover in a minor ally power That sounds more like "How can we maintain a sphere of influence and a de facto empire" rather than "How can we ensure the nation is defended from attack." National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't. Spheres of influence are fuzzy, and indeed fuzzy claims are susceptible to gradualist takeovers. I agree that a large conventional military…
> National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't. See Russia-Ukraine war. "Uprising" starts using weapons made in Russia. They say it's not them. Do you nuke them over it? How about later, when they carved out the part they like, and admit it was them all along, but promise "we won't go further". Do you nuke them? How about when they formally annex that part? It's called salami tact…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> National borders are (mostly) sharp, so either you're being invaded or you aren't. See Russia-Ukraine war. "Uprising" starts using weapons made in Russia. They say it's not them. Do you nuke them over it? How about later, when they carved out the part they like, and admit it was them all along, but promise "we won't go further". Do you nuke them? How about when they formally annex that part? It's called salami tact…
The Ukraine annexation by Russia was supported by most of the local residents, though. The way to resolve situations where regions of the country want to become independent or join another nation is by allowing them to vote on secession.
Russia also invaded parts of Ukraine that had Ukrainian majority, and war still goes on there (just less intensive). There's nothing preventing them from invading still more parts. So "let's just give away contested territories" is not a good solution - because if 30% minority is contested territory- then after giving it away - it will be contested territory for the other side as well.
We've tried this after WW1 and it didn't worked.