Orange Duce

[runrussellrun]

We'll adapt. You think if we lose cheap gas we'll sit in the corner with a blanket over our head, and listen to the Cure's greatest hits on repeat.

[

"Mint Car" belongs in the trash, NOT on a Cure greatest hits. I'll stick with "staring at the sea" or even this tribute to Jimi Hendrix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLGlDQR ... lnyqTJhuYv

Of course, Belly's 'are you experienced' tops the list.

AFAN, glad to see your rant posts are back. Your "hate tRump" vitriol is, well, boring and sanguine opposite. Interesting that the usual cadre of pretends aren't lambasting you for all your whataboutisms over time.

[foreverlax]

Victor Davis Hanson: Anti-Trump figures could face 'boomerang effect' as Mueller probe concludes

"I think the Mueller story is pretty much through, and it's kind of like a boomerang effect," Hanson said. "Now we are going to see that the people who were instrumental in subverting the Trump campaign and transition and indeed the presidency are going to be called to account.

"We heard these walls are closing in," Hanson continued, "but it's going to act in reverse. So, Comey, Brennan, McCabe, [Justice Department official] Bruce Ohr and his wife -- they are facing criminal referrals or likely criminal referrals.

"This is going to be a slow, drawn-out process all the way to the 2020 election," he added.

We will see about who will be called to account

"You mention the good economy," he told host Laura Ingraham. "That's something Trump needs to focus even more on."

"We have a big annual deficit and Trump might be vulnerable there, but the Democrats don't have a reputation for fiscal sobriety," he added. "In areas that Trump might be vulnerable, they offer no alternative vision but the Green New Deal and reparations."

What a toad....

[foreverlax]

We'll adapt. You think if we lose cheap gas we'll sit in the corner with a blanket over our head, and listen to the Cure's greatest hits on repeat.

[

"Mint Car" belongs in the trash, NOT on a Cure greatest hits. I'll stick with "staring at the sea" or even this tribute to Jimi Hendrix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLGlDQR ... lnyqTJhuYv

Of course, Belly's 'are you experienced' tops the list.

AFAN, glad to see your rant posts are back. Your "hate tRump" vitriol is, well, boring and sanguine opposite. Interesting that the usual cadre of pretends aren't lambasting you for all your whataboutisms over time.

Rants vitriol boring....and so much more, said the pot.

[MDlaxfan76]

We did not need to take the action when we did, we could have waited and gathered consensus, and we should have thoroughly planned for the ramifications of military action.

The longer we waited, the less the sense of urgency & the harder to gain consensus.
Bush/Cheney knew they had a limited window of opportunity.
9-11 was still a recent memory. In Afghanistan, the Taliban had been quickly routed & AQ decimated, with remnants run to ground or driven into Pakistan. In '03, Afghanistan had not yet become a protracted stalemate.

But you're dodging my question -- how should we have dealt with Iraq, post 9-11, as we pursued an unknown GWOT ?

How long could we sustain patrolling the no fly zones, out of bases in SA, that had already been targeted by terrorists, which were destabilizing SA. UN sanctions were expiring, support for renewing them was crumbling. The UN oil for food program was a scam. Saddam was selling black market oil to Syria & Turkey, using the funds rearm & rebuild his air defenses.

How would you have dealt with Saddam & Sons ? Would you have abandoned our bi-partisan national policy of regime change ?
How much longer we you willing to wait & keep our forces engaged in combat with Iraq. It had been 12 years by '03, & Saddam was getting stronger.
What military strategy did you favor in '03, notwithstanding the WMD "threat". (& did you really buy it ? WMD delivered by Iraqi drones, launched from tramp steamers offshore the US).

Bush/Cheney rightly concluded that if we were ever going to achieve the official US policy of regime change in Iraq, we would never have a better opportunity, & they seized it. That's why I maintain that making war on Saddam in '91, falling short of driving him from office, made the second Iraq war inevitable.

In hindsight, I quite disagree that we could not have/should not have taken longer to either muster full allied support or stay the heck out.

So, in hindsight, what would have been the better course?

Well' you state a number of assumptions I can neither prove nor disprove, though one seems pretty clear to be misleading as to "Saddam was getting stronger". ...Sure, he was gaining some relative military capacity relative to the nadir post Desert Storm, but no question that they were not a threat conventionally to the US or their neighbors, albeit they had capabilities versus an invasion by a neighbor.

I also don't buy for a moment that Afghanistan was remotely in hand.

Your assumptions are flawed. The longer we delayed, the more our support dissipated. Bush got those who were "willing".
France said no. Turkey played coy, then said NO after we had an entire Infantry Division waiting in ships outside Turkish ports, denying the ability to open a northern front which would have greatly eased the aftermath.

You discount Saddam's increasing rearmament. Here's what CNN reported* @ '97.
By '03, Saddam had 6 more years of oil for food & black market oil money to rearm. He was installing Chinese fiber optic networking for his air defenses & his missile shots at our no fly zone patrolling aircraft were becoming more frequent & accurate.

Consider what that '97 CNN report predicted for the future after the massive Desert Fox bombing campaign failed to yield regime chamge :

* Iraq has been slowly rebuilding its military forces since 1991. And while it is nowhere near as powerful as it was, Iraq's armed forces still represent a threat to other countries and U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf region, military analysts say.

"If they took all of their forces, put them on the border -- Republican Guards, about 100,000 good troops -- they could cause quite a bit of damage," said Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Iraq is boxed in by more than 200 U.S. and allied fighter planes, including U.S. F-15s and F-16s in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, A-10 "tank killers" in Kuwait; and F-18s on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Nimitz in the Gulf.

Six of the 17 U.S. ships in the Gulf are equipped with deadly accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles; the type used to punish Saddam twice before -- last year and in 1993.

The United States spends $500-600 million a year to maintain its military stranglehold on Iraq.

The Pentagon believes the strategy against Iraq will likely keep U.S. forces in the Gulf for another 15 years, and will probably require periodic strikes to keep Saddam in line.

...& ^ was @ '07. saddam kept rearming the ensuing 6 years. Look at the massive force level we had to keep tied up there for the previous 12 years, with no end in sight, without regime change. ...compare that to the single Navy Frigate we maintained on Camel Station before we went ashore in '91.

Afghanistan was not "in hand" in '03, but AQ & Taliban had not yet reconstituted & begun their insurgency.

We're both looking back with the benefit of hindsight. I keep circling back to '91 because that's when we first committed ourselves to combat in support of Gulf Arab allies. Was returning Kuwait to the Emir worth all that followed. Would annexing Kiwait satisfy Saddam's hegemonic ambitions. Who knows? It would have prompted us to increase our afloat presence in the Gulf & inspired our Gulf Arab allies to increase their defenses. Would the Arab states have worked out a deal allowing Saddam to retain Kuwait without threatenibg his Arab neigbors. I think that Evans & Novak * column I linked would have been prescient. ...but it's all hypothetical hindsight gaming.
W was stuck with cleaning up Poppy's unfinished business.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... e3f963871b

August 3, 1990
The failure of the world intelligence services, led by the CIA and Israel's Mossad, to foresee Iraq's surprise invasion of Kuwait offers the first clue to the shrewdness of strong man Saddam Hussein's dangerous vision.

"They all thought the threat to Kuwait was just a light touch," said a Bush administration insider. "Why would Saddam Hussein invite Western military attaches to come watch his tanks drive down the road to the Kuwaiti border if he was going to actually use them?"

That mistake by Western intelligence ensured Iraq's lightning takeover of the oil kingdom. The conquest might have been derailed before it happened, but cannot now be undone from outside.

Judging from the past, Saddam Hussein is not likely to press his luck by invading other Persian Gulf states any time soon. That is particularly true if President Bush accepts strong advice that the United States guarantee the safety of Saudi Arabia. The U.S. aircraft carrier Independence, sent steaming toward the Straits of Hormuz yesterday, could not reach Kuwait with its warplanes from Hormuz without refueling. But an invasion of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates would expose Iraqi forces to direct, easy carrier attack.

More likely, Saddam Hussein will digest the Kuwaiti conquest, which has always been his special target.

I totally disagree that it was inevitable, post '91, that we would invade Iraq and the question was only when.

Nope, we could and should have maintained what pressure we could, but invasion , no. Would that have been frustrating to the hawks? sure.

But losing moral suasion we should Never do.

Unfortunately we've had a long pattern of such, in the name of 'national interest'... meaning oil.

But the defense of Kuwait was an international response to an act of aggression, no loss of moral suasion.

[a fan]

AFAN, glad to see your rant posts are back. Your "hate tRump" vitriol is, well, boring and sanguine opposite.

Whataboutism? I'm currently discussing our ME policies that are based on oil. Calmly explaining why it's a foolish and blood filled theory to posit that we NEED that oil to flow, and that we NEED to go to war to keep it flowing.

Have no clue how you got "Trump vitriol" from that. Didn't even mention Trump.

[6ftstick]

AFAN, glad to see your rant posts are back. Your "hate tRump" vitriol is, well, boring and sanguine opposite.

Whataboutism? I'm currently discussing our ME policies that are based on oil. Calmly explaining why it's a foolish and blood filled theory to posit that we NEED that oil to flow, and that we NEED to go to war to keep it flowing.

Have no clue how you got "Trump vitriol" from that. Didn't even mention Trump.

Heres some Obama vitriol

Argentinian President Claims Former Obama Official Asked The Country To Provide Iran With Nuclear Fuel

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen ... ac1b111895

[a fan]

That's a 4 year old Op-Ed.

[6ftstick]

That's a 4 year old Op-Ed.

Thats half the point.

No Media coverage of a backdoor nuclear material deal with IRAN. I DON'T REMEMBER ANY.

[old salt]

That's just nuts. Pie in the sky lunacy. You can't just transform & restructure a sprawling USA, which covers a continent.

What do you think we're going to do when the Middle East oil reserves are gone? Surrender to the French? Give up? Drink Kool Aid?
We've had this tutorial before. Now that we have fracking, horiz drilling, & access to Alaska & offshore reserves, we'll never run out of oil. A big part of our refining & distribution capacity is still set up to process Persian & Venezuelan crude. It has not yet been cost effective to completely convert to domestic crude & we're still building the pipelines necessary. Much of the rest of the world still depends on Persian Gulf oil, so it's supply impacts global oil prices & thus the global economy. We are not insulated from the economic impact.

Adapt. It's the beauty of free market capitalism. Taking oil by force has stunted that mechanism, which is part of my point.
Well well -- let's see who the world now looks to - to keep the sea lanes open coming out of the Gulf, now that Iran is attacking tankers again.

You're assuming so many things here. You're assuming if the US isn't over there, the oil will stop. Let's see who else sends minesweepers & escorts convoys out of the Gulf. Are NATO, Japanese, Indian & Chinese warships underway yet ? You're assuming the only energy sources are in the Middle East.

We didn't have fracking in '91.

Actually. We did. Read about it for yourself. Invented in the 40's. And that's my point. Now why weren't we fracking? Is it a complicated tech heavy invention? Nope. It's because gas has been cheap all this time, making the method financially inefficient, and making R&D pointless. War-for-ME-oil ruined that math, my friend. So we shelved the idea.
We didn't yet have the necessary horiz drilling capability. It's digital nav. Price did play a part, but not making it cheap enough to undercut Persian Gulf oil on the world market or drive the conversion of our refining & distribution capacity to use US crude only.

We'd stopped building nuc power plants (go watch Jane Fonda in China Syndrome)
We haven't broken ground on a new nuc plant since 1977 & a new one hasn't come on line since 1990.

Yep. Why? Because instead, we CHOSE to send our military in to solve our energy problems. It was a CHOICE.
It was because of enviro scare tactics, after 3MI. Electricity is no longer a driving factor in US oil demand. Much less US elec or heating is based on oil. Transportation is the demand.

Where do you think these energy policies come from? They just fall from the sky? Santa tells us what to do every Dec 25th?
Market forces.

We CHOSE this path. You are laboring under the illusion that we have no choice in the matter. I have no Earthly idea why. Doubly so as you think that Trump's tariffs are no big thing....yet you want to go to war over one component of our economy.

Sprawl was driven by more influential factors than gas prices.

Double gas prices in America for a decade. Watch where people choose to live. Watch how "magically" interested citizens become in mass transit options.
How's that CA high speed rail workin' out ? NYC & DC subways are worn out.

How much innovation has high gas prices brought to Europe & Japan ?

This serious? Have you been to either? Europass ring a bell anywhere? Toured all over W EU on my BSA 650 then Peugeot 205. Rode bullet train up & down Japan. Or high speed trains that we will never have in the US?
...or imported German diesels which have to cheat to meet US emissions standards. We can't even build high speed rail to run between LA & SF, or DC & NYC. Too disruptive to existing development.

Look how much more energy efficient our vehicles, buildings, heating & AC have become, thanks to better design & innovation.

And government forcing the issue. Mileage standards. Market shortages---the ones you think we need to avoid at all costs--- pushed Japanese and EU makers as well as Americans to work on lighter, stronger materials.
I've never opposed reasonably attainable mpg or emissions standards or a floating gas tax that increases or decreases with global supply price, resulting in stable pump prices with slight yearly increases.

You want to halt natural market shortages with blood and war. And you don't seem to get that's what you're advocating. And don't understand that these prices effect where we live, what we drive, where we focus R&D.......you think these things are random. They're not.
It's not that I "want it". I'm realistic enough to understand that economic forces will drive us to expend blood & treasure to protect the US economy, standard of living & quality of life.

Our economy & our way of life are based on motor vehicle travel & cheap gas.

Yes. That statement makes my point. Thank you.

It can 100% work without it.
Maybe when you & ACO try to impose it. Good luck with that.

We're not compact like Europe with dense housing & reliable public transportation.

Yup. And that's a direct result of cheap gas. One led to the other. Get rid of cheap gas, and that will change. And we'll invest in fracking. And nuclear power. And natural gas. And solar. And wind. And, and, and. EU won't frack. NY won't frack. Elec vehicle charging stations on the Autobahns for German coal fired elec, replacing their cheatin' diesels ? You global greenies got it all figured out.

We'll adapt. You think if we lose cheap gas we'll sit in the corner with a blanket over our head, and listen to the Cure's greatest hits on repeat.
We have -- fracking, DAPL, & aluminum F-150 pickups.

It's insanity to think you could flip a switch in '91 or '79 & convert our way of life which developed based on motor vehicle transportation

Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?

After all these years, you think that the ME would simply not drill if the US wasn't there? What would they do?

That stunt they pulled in the 1970's? Why do you supposed they've never done that again? Did OPEC forget? Or did America cut its ME oil demand in half inside of a decade?

Oil is trade. Something you and Trump don't seem to get. The ME needs customers. If they show the market that supply is erratic..what happens?
The ME is not monolithic as Iran vs the GCC is demonstrating.

That's right. The market reacts. It's why we're no longer driving 8mpg cars.
Iran is showing how easy it is for them to disrupt the flow.

You & ACO need to run off to a hippie commune together or live among the Amish.

And you need to grow an imagination. If you were in charge, we'd have never made it to the moon.

Innovate. Adapt. It's the most American thing we do.

Ever notice how much time your party spends telling us how many things we can't do as a nation? Can't provide health care. Can't educate our citizens. When did we get so weak and ineffectual? What happened to your party? Weak sauce.
They're commuting to & from their Xburb McMansions, in their p/u's & crossover SUV's, getting > 20 mpg on ethanol blended clean burning gas, available at stable affordable prices. ...where do you think all the lax players come from ? ...& we'll fight to preserve it.

[jhu72]

AFAN, glad to see your rant posts are back. Your "hate tRump" vitriol is, well, boring and sanguine opposite.

Whataboutism? I'm currently discussing our ME policies that are based on oil. Calmly explaining why it's a foolish and blood filled theory to posit that we NEED that oil to flow, and that we NEED to go to war to keep it flowing.

Have no clue how you got "Trump vitriol" from that. Didn't even mention Trump.

Heres some Obama vitriol

Argentinian President Claims Former Obama Official Asked The Country To Provide Iran With Nuclear Fuel

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen ... ac1b111895

You never disappoint. Kirchner's original story (not the Fox story) explains quite clearly what went on. Allow Iran to stop producing fuel for their commercial reactor by having a third party supplier provide the fuel. A perfectly reasonable concept. The deal fell through and Argentina never supplied the fuel.

There is a reason the MSM (but for Fox) didn't spend much ink on this. 4 or 5 years later it is revealed in a benign fashion. It is a nothing burger.

[MDlaxfan76]

AFAN, glad to see your rant posts are back. Your "hate tRump" vitriol is, well, boring and sanguine opposite.

Whataboutism? I'm currently discussing our ME policies that are based on oil. Calmly explaining why it's a foolish and blood filled theory to posit that we NEED that oil to flow, and that we NEED to go to war to keep it flowing.

Have no clue how you got "Trump vitriol" from that. Didn't even mention Trump.

Heres some Obama vitriol

Argentinian President Claims Former Obama Official Asked The Country To Provide Iran With Nuclear Fuel

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen ... ac1b111895

You never disappoint. Kirchner's original story (not the Fox story) explains quite clearly what went on. Allow Iran to stop producing fuel for their commercial reactor by having a third party supplier provide the fuel. A perfectly reasonable concept. The deal fell through and Argentina never supplied the fuel.

There is a reason the MSM (but for Fox) didn't spend much ink on this. 4 or 5 years later it is revealed in a benign fashion. It is a nothing burger.

Not just a 'nothing burger', it was good proposal.
Get Iran all the way out of the nuclear fuel production game where it's a short step to refinement of bomb grade.
That would have been better than having them just promise not to go the next step.

But, gee, Obama!

[a fan]

It's not that I "want it". I'm realistic enough to understand that economic forces will drive us to expend blood & treasure to protect the US economy, standard of living & quality of life.

Yes, you do want it...you're telling me we have no choice...and that's just a ridiculous position. Saying we have no choice is just a way to make yourself feel better about the consequences of this choice.

What you are giving me is a theory. You just don't understand it's a theory. You think you're handing me a fact.

Just like LeMay or better still, the super-cool Bob McNamara. You think your battle calculus is beyond questioning.

What's the batting average for American military theories like the one you're espousing here?


Not even good enough for a few weeks of double A baseball. And yet you're laughing at me for pointing out that you have NO CLUE how the market would react if we had simply stayed out of the ME either militarily, or bankrolling despots.

The market would adapt in ways that you cannot predict.

We've reached an impasse, I think.

[old salt]

It's not that I "want it". I'm realistic enough to understand that economic forces will drive us to expend blood & treasure to protect the US economy, standard of living & quality of life.

Yes, you do want it...you're telling me we have no choice...and that's just a ridiculous position. Saying we have no choice is just a way to make yourself feel better about the consequences of this choice.

What you are giving me is a theory. You just don't understand it's a theory. You think you're handing me a fact.

Just like LeMay or better still, the super-cool Bob McNamara. You think your battle calculus is beyond questioning.

What's the batting average for American military theories like the one you're espousing here?

Not even good enough for a few weeks of double A baseball. And yet you're laughing at me for pointing out that you have NO CLUE how the market would react if we had simply stayed out of the ME either militarily, or bankrolling despots.

The market would adapt in ways that you cannot predict.

We've reached an impasse, I think.

You don't get it. I'm acknowledging what our political leaders will do to appease the US public & give us the standard of living & quality of life we demand.

We can't stay out of the ME, now that we've been the major influence there since '79, & the dominant military presence since '90.

Don't try telling me the theories I espouse & how they equate to McNamara or LeMay.
I'm not advocating invading or occupying anywhere or massive strategic bombing or a nuc first strike.
I explain how & why things have happened, then you falsely attribute them as my theories.

Personally, I'd be happy living with a fraction of the stuff I've got, driving my 20 year old vehicles.
My wife & I could live comfortably on our SS alone if we had to, because we have no debt.
We don't need our pensions or investments. We're trying to figure out what good we can good with our nest egg wealth after we depart.
We also realize we're fortunate exceptions to the norm.

As attractive & satisfying as isolationism is intellectually, it's not practical in our interconnected world, where events anywhere on the planet can impact us dramatically. We can't fall back behind our oceans as our defense. We can't even secure our southern border.
If we don't assert ourselves, others will fill the void. ...& we won't like the results.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It's not that I "want it". I'm realistic enough to understand that economic forces will drive us to expend blood & treasure to protect the US economy, standard of living & quality of life.

Yes, you do want it...you're telling me we have no choice...and that's just a ridiculous position. Saying we have no choice is just a way to make yourself feel better about the consequences of this choice.

What you are giving me is a theory. You just don't understand it's a theory. You think you're handing me a fact.

Just like LeMay or better still, the super-cool Bob McNamara. You think your battle calculus is beyond questioning.

What's the batting average for American military theories like the one you're espousing here?

Not even good enough for a few weeks of double A baseball. And yet you're laughing at me for pointing out that you have NO CLUE how the market would react if we had simply stayed out of the ME either militarily, or bankrolling despots.

The market would adapt in ways that you cannot predict.

We've reached an impasse, I think.

You don't get it. I'm acknowledging what our political leaders will do to appease the US public & give us the standard of living & quality of life we demand.

We can't stay out of the ME, now that we've been the major influence there since '79, & the dominant military presence since '90.

Don't try telling me the theories I espouse & how they equate to McNamara or LeMay.
I'm not advocating invading or occupying anywhere or massive strategic bombing or a nuc first strike.
I explain how & why things have happened, then you falsely attribute them as my theories.

Personally, I'd be happy living with a fraction of the stuff I've got, driving my 20 year old vehicles.
My wife & I could live comfortably on our SS alone if we had to, because we have no debt.
We don't need our pensions or investments. We're trying to figure out what good we can good with our nest egg wealth after we depart.
We also realize we're fortunate exceptions to the norm.

As attractive & satisfying as isolationism is intellectually, it's not practical in our interconnected world, where events anywhere on the planet can impact us dramatically. We can't fall back behind our oceans as our defense. We can't even secure our southern border.
If we don't assert ourselves, others will fill the void. ...& we won't like the results.

You think there is a military threat at the Southern Border that the US Military can’t contain? BS

[old salt]

We don't have the fortitude or resolve to secure our southern border.

We can't, & won't, wall off our country or withdraw from the world.

I thought you were the King of Irony, except when you play Mr Literal.

[Typical Lax Dad]

We don't have the fortitude or resolve to secure our southern border.

We can't, & won't, wall off our country or withdraw from the world.

I thought you were the King of Irony, except when you play Mr Literal.

Still can't answer a straight question

[a fan]

You don't get it. I'm acknowledging what our political leaders will do to appease the US public & give us the standard of living & quality of life we demand.

Well if you stop defending the practice, and simply tell me that you disagree with it, and you think it's bad policy...I won't assume that you condone it. Otherwise, what am I supposed to think?

Don't try telling me the theories I espouse & how they equate to McNamara or LeMay.
I'm not advocating invading or occupying anywhere or massive strategic bombing or a nuc first strike.
I explain how & why things have happened, then you falsely attribute them as my theories.

Then say so. This is what I've been complaining about. If I take you literally, you come back and explain that that's not YOUR theory.

If I take you figuratively, you rip me for building strawmen.

Help a brother out!

As attractive & satisfying as isolationism is intellectually, it's not practical in our interconnected world, where events anywhere on the planet can impact us dramatically. We can't fall back behind our oceans as our defense.

There's a world of difference between being a part of NATO forces keeping the sea lanes open, and sending US Troops to Iraq or bankrolling Saddam.

I advocate the NATO approach. And condemn boots on the ground, or "arming the right guys". There are degrees. Hell, you taught me that, no?

[old salt]

You don't get it. I'm acknowledging what our political leaders will do to appease the US public & give us the standard of living & quality of life we demand.

Well if you stop defending the practice, and simply tell me that you disagree with it, and you think it's bad policy...I won't assume that you condone it. Otherwise, what am I supposed to think?
As I keep pointing out -- it has all been inevitable since we went ashore in '91. I'm not prepared to 2nd guess that decision or the others it prompted since, because I can't assert that things would have been better had we never gotten involved. It's quite possible things could have come out worse. We certainly celebrated in '91 & again in '03.

Don't try telling me the theories I espouse & how they equate to McNamara or LeMay.
I'm not advocating invading or occupying anywhere or massive strategic bombing or a nuc first strike.
I explain how & why things have happened, then you falsely attribute them as my theories.

Then say so. This is what I've been complaining about. If I take you literally, you come back and explain that that's not YOUR theory.

If I take you figuratively, you rip me for building strawmen.

Help a brother out!

As attractive & satisfying as isolationism is intellectually, it's not practical in our interconnected world, where events anywhere on the planet can impact us dramatically. We can't fall back behind our oceans as our defense.

There's a world of difference between being a part of NATO forces keeping the sea lanes open, and sending US Troops to Iraq or bankrolling Saddam. We didn't bankroll Saddam. The Kuwaitis & other Gulf States, ...but not enough.

I advocate the NATO approach. And condemn boots on the ground, or "arming the right guys". There are degrees. Hell, you taught me that, no?
You had me fooled the way you're b!tch!ng & 2nd guessing our efforts in the ME to keep those sea lanes open & not disrupt the oil flow to Japan, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, S Korea & our NATO allies. Compared to the Iranians, the Saudis are the right guys to arm. At least they're finally in the fight, rather than holding our coat. We're nor assembling an invasion force. Just force protection of what's based there.

[old salt]

You think there is a military threat at the Southern Border that the US Military can’t contain? BS

We don't have the fortitude or resolve to secure our southern border.

We can't, & won't, wall off our country or withdraw from the world.

I thought you were the King of Irony, except when you play Mr Literal.

Still can't answer a straight question

Yeah, hundreds of thousands of sick kids & their parents, coming to join their family members already here illegally.

(D) Governors are witholding National Guard troops.
(D)'s in the House won't authorize or appropriate funds for active duty forces to supplement DHS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 9956ba7f4f

The approximately 6,000 troops that the Pentagon said would be at the border by March 1 include about 2,100 National Guard personnel. The guardsmen are deployed to the border to help relieve what the Trump administration has described as strain on CBP due to a large number of Central American families crossing the border.

The governors of California and New Mexico ordered the withdrawal of most of the guardsmen from the border in their states, calling the deployment political theater. As a result, the overall number of guardsmen deployed could soon decrease.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that lawmakers plan to vote Tuesday on a measure rejecting Trump’s national emergency declaration.

https://www.federaltimes.com/federal-ov ... er-crisis/

Two House Democrats who served as judge advocates general are urging Attorney General Jeff Sessions to withdraw his request for JAGs at the U.S.-Mexico border, and three senators — including one armed services Republican — are asking Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to reconsider his decision to comply with the request.

Reps. Ted Lieu of California and Anthony Brown of Maryland wrote Sessions to argue that stretching an already overtaxed JAG Corps would shortchange their primary mission to troops, military families and national security overall. They called the move “unwise, inefficient” and a detriment to national security.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... -to-border

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ripped President Trump on Twitter Thursday for "pointlessly" sending troops to the border instead of working with Democrats on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The California Democrat wrote: "@realDonaldTrump is using every cynical political trick in the book to ignite anti-immigrant fervor. Needlessly militarizing our southern border won’t make Americans more safe – it’s just another political calculation.

"Instead of wasting resources on pointlessly sending troops to our border, @realDonaldTrump should work with Democrats to pass the DREAM Act & #ProtectDREAMers," she added.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 531182a247

The Pentagon is preparing to loosen rules that bar troops from interacting with migrants entering the United States, expanding the military’s involvement in President Trump’s operation along the southern border.

Senior Defense Department officials have recommended that acting defense secretary Patrick Shanahan approve a new request from the Department of Homeland Security to provide military lawyers, cooks and drivers to assist with handling a surge of migrants along the border.

The move would require authorizing waivers for about 300 troops to a long-standing policy prohibiting military personnel from coming into contact with migrants.

The Pentagon has approved only one previous request to waive the policy since the beginning of Trump’s recent border buildup, to help provide migrants with emergency medical care. There are about 2,900 active-duty troops and 2,000 National Guardsmen along the border.

In a sign of the sensitivities surrounding a move that might be seen as putting troops in a law enforcement role, the documents note that military personnel would remain in a “segregated driver’s compartment” when driving migrants to detention facilities. Customs and Border Protection officials would provide security on those trips.

The soldiers would also be asked to hand out snacks and refreshments to migrants in detention, where families often receive items such as cookies, crackers and juice boxes between meals. CBP agents often complain such tasks amount to “babysitting” duties and say their time would be better spent guarding the border.

Troops would be accompanied by law enforcement personnel as they provide migrants food and periodically check on their welfare.
Border Patrol officials say overwhelmed agents are being pulled away from their law enforcement duties because they are so busy caring for migrant parents and children. The shortage of drivers and agents who can chaperone migrants to hospitals has been especially acute.

CBP officers have been reassigned from ports of entry to drive vehicles and perform other support roles for border agents, but that has exacerbated wait times for commercial trucks and passenger vehicles crossing from Mexico.

[OCanada]

WhT you mean to reference is Mitch won’t let any nil passed in the House get a vote in the Senate. The number is in the hundreds. We need all kinds of bills passed