Jump to content

Reality vs Idealism For Those Who Stood On the Sidelines..


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member
2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

there is some truth to that but i'd say we are the 2nd case

How about we gradually work our way back to the left instead of pouting if we can't go all the way back immediately?  Again - idealism vs reality.  Now they have culpability in Dump/Putin/Russian election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

How about we gradually work our way back to the left instead of pouting if we can't go all the way back immediately?  Again - idealism vs reality.  Now they have culpability in Dump/Putin/Russian election. 

oh no, we can't have that! it's all the way left or nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SnowRider said:

How about we gradually work our way back to the left instead of pouting if we can't go all the way back immediately?  Again - idealism vs reality.  Now they have culpability in Dump/Putin/Russian election. 

 

21752253_10155804329444571_1832845099907983889_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, Snoslinger said:

noggin still thinks he's going to be able to rally his 50 troops to win an election with millions.

He should try his formula at the local level :lmao: 

Dumpers and Moto/Moto's ilk are one in the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SnowRider said:

 How about we gradually work our way back to the left instead of pouting if we can't go all the way back immediately?  Again - idealism vs reality.  Now they have culpability in Dump/Putin/Russian election. 

work our way back to the left are you fucking joking ? we are so fucking left that any one dare talk about not reducing funding but just not giving the automatic increases in the yearly budget of a worthless social project in a massive list of worthless social projects the country has a fucking aneurism. you want to loosen any regulation the country has a break down . don't even fucking start with your worthless back to the left crap . hell we just elected a guy who was a demarcate when bush was still in office

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

work our way back to the left are you fucking joking ? we are so fucking left that any one dare talk about not reducing funding but just not giving the automatic increases in the yearly budget of a worthless social project in a massive list of worthless social projects the country has a fucking aneurism. you want to loosen any regulation the country has a break down . don't even fucking start with your worthless back to the left crap . hell we just elected a guy who was a demarcate when bush was still in office

  

When you're to the right of Mussolini, everyone looks left

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

so you think the country's policy's  are far right then ?  

Yes. Imperialism, perpetual war, violating the 4th amendment with impunity, etc are all traits of authoritarian government. 

Just look at the self righteous demands for obedience from those who dissent. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the topic at hand. Creating an accurate depiction of civilian deaths is extremely hard to do. The ability to determine deaths in ISIS held territory is impossible to do accurately. It is the nature of the conflict. ISIS (Or insert any other terror regime) uses bombing to rally support. The numbers from both Obama and Trump are hard to pin down. Using them to juxtapose against one another is silly. The conflict itself has changed significantly. That is due to the fight moving to the city. Absolutely the civilian deaths will have increased. The fight is actually nearly complete from most sources. So we may in fact see a significant drop in bombs and deaths in the coming months. Mosul is liberated, Raqqa is nearly complete, and ISIS truly has very little in terms of acreage at this point. With that in mind, those who are chastising Trump here, will you retract your statements in the coming months when bombing drops off? 

Trump has done one thing better than Obama (I should say Mattis has done one thing better...). They have delegated control of the micro fight to on the ground commanders. These aren't run of the mill conventional commanders either. These are tier 1 elite officers who know how to risk mitigate and control fires at a level that is unprecedented in warfare. These commanders are doing whatever they can to minimize casualties. The ability to send that power back to the ground has had two fold effect. First, it allows for the entire fight against ISIS to move at a much faster rate. That in itself could account for the increased numbers. While yes numbers may be up, the resulting gains are significantly up. Think of it this way. We dropped 100 bombs to take 100 miles under Obama. Now we are dropping 200 bombs to take 1000 miles. That is in essence what is occurring with the increased number dropped in Syria and Iraq. Of course those numbers are being used as a point rather than official numbers. 

Second, giving ground commanders the ability to make determination allows for more accurate fires. By removing Pentagon or WH authority, the number of drone strikes from afar based off intel and not JFO's drops is dropping. The majority of bombs are controlled from the ground over that of CIA/DIA intel. That has been a major change. That change is good. In conjunction with this, it limits the time to get a response. ISIS fighters are not dumb. They congregate towards civilian populations. The wait for OK from D.C vs. commander discretion allows them to drop munitions when it best meets their own view of the battle rather than wasting time that allows ISIS to intermingle in civilian populations. 

IF the question is, "Should we be dropping bombs period?" That is a different case in itself, but from my opinion the overall handling of fires has improve under Vice-Roy Mattis. Strategic gains against ISIS have improved as well. That is evident from results on the ground. I don't like being over there period, but Mattis has done very well in the region because of new shifts in strategic intent. I think this conversation needs to be had with a statistical mindset. The case of apples to oranges is being too easily applied here. We are dropping more bombs and theoretically killing more civilians, but I feel a lot of that is from the scope of the battle. It has increased significantly and moved faster. Most importantly it moved into the urban sphere. The jury is still out on this one. I would look at these same stats in 6 months. I have a feeling we will not be dropping many bombs in the same conflict. That isn't to say a "new" need to drop bombs won't arise though... Surely it will with our current climate. That is the key though. Matching bombs per theater. If you look at a holistic view of all conflicts, you don't get an accurate picture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Back to the topic at hand. Creating an accurate depiction of civilian deaths is extremely hard to do. The ability to determine deaths in ISIS held territory is impossible to do accurately. It is the nature of the conflict. ISIS (Or insert any other terror regime) uses bombing to rally support. The numbers from both Obama and Trump are hard to pin down. Using them to juxtapose against one another is silly. The conflict itself has changed significantly. That is due to the fight moving to the city. Absolutely the civilian deaths will have increased. The fight is actually nearly complete from most sources. So we may in fact see a significant drop in bombs and deaths in the coming months. Mosul is liberated, Raqqa is nearly complete, and ISIS truly has very little in terms of acreage at this point. With that in mind, those who are chastising Trump here, will you retract your statements in the coming months when bombing drops off? 

Trump has done one thing better than Obama (I should say Mattis has done one thing better...). They have delegated control of the micro fight to on the ground commanders. These aren't run of the mill conventional commanders either. These are tier 1 elite officers who know how to risk mitigate and control fires at a level that is unprecedented in warfare. These commanders are doing whatever they can to minimize casualties. The ability to send that power back to the ground has had two fold effect. First, it allows for the entire fight against ISIS to move at a much faster rate. That in itself could account for the increased numbers. While yes numbers may be up, the resulting gains are significantly up. Think of it this way. We dropped 100 bombs to take 100 miles under Obama. Now we are dropping 200 bombs to take 1000 miles. That is in essence what is occurring with the increased number dropped in Syria and Iraq. Of course those numbers are being used as a point rather than official numbers. 

Second, giving ground commanders the ability to make determination allows for more accurate fires. By removing Pentagon or WH authority, the number of drone strikes from afar based off intel and not JFO's drops is dropping. The majority of bombs are controlled from the ground over that of CIA/DIA intel. That has been a major change. That change is good. In conjunction with this, it limits the time to get a response. ISIS fighters are not dumb. They congregate towards civilian populations. The wait for OK from D.C vs. commander discretion allows them to drop munitions when it best meets their own view of the battle rather than wasting time that allows ISIS to intermingle in civilian populations. 

IF the question is, "Should we be dropping bombs period?" That is a different case in itself, but from my opinion the overall handling of fires has improve under Vice-Roy Mattis. Strategic gains against ISIS have improved as well. That is evident from results on the ground. I don't like being over there period, but Mattis has done very well in the region because of new shifts in strategic intent. I think this conversation needs to be had with a statistical mindset. The case of apples to oranges is being too easily applied here. We are dropping more bombs and theoretically killing more civilians, but I feel a lot of that is from the scope of the battle. It has increased significantly and moved faster. Most importantly it moved into the urban sphere. The jury is still out on this one. I would look at these same stats in 6 months. I have a feeling we will not be dropping many bombs in the same conflict. That isn't to say a "new" need to drop bombs won't arise though... Surely it will with our current climate. That is the key though. Matching bombs per theater. If you look at a holistic view of all conflicts, you don't get an accurate picture. 

Related image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...