Politics

[Brent in Az]

The same NATO countries that joined the fray against Al Queda, are now reluctant, and even vocally critical of the U.S operations against Iran.
Why? Because it would be seen as helping Trump, regardless of the existential threat that Iran has always been thru state sponsored terrorism, and the potential for possessing nuclear weapons.
No doubt Iran has its sleeper cells spread across the globe, just waiting for that opportune moment.

 

[sgt_zim]

While I do support capital punishment, you and I are pretty much in lock step agreement on everything else.. Even to the point that I dont think that all murderers should automatically get the death penalty.. A 20 year old drug addict raping and killing an 80 year old woman? Absolutely expedite the process and rid the earth of him... not only to make the world a safer and better place.. but also to send a very clear message to any other person that would consider similar behaviors..

but a 19 year old gang banger in the same situation you describe? maybe not (I think we'd have to have much more detail of the circumstances.. unfortuneately there are a lot of 19 year old gang banging murderers that arent on their first felony offense when they kill a rival gang member... they've been frequent flyers of the juvie system and the adult jails since their pre-teen years and continue to escalate)... I am open to considering a life sentance, or even a very long sentance but possibility of parole under the right circumstances and conditions..

The evidence is available to anyone willing to actually look at it... tougher prisons and tougher courts lead to safer streets and less crime.. there is a reason that Portland, Oregon was considered one of the safest cities in the US in the 1980's, and now has one of the worst overall crime rates in the country today.. The FBI rated Portland the 2nd worst city in the US last year for crime with a crime rate 198% higher than the national average..

The only city thats worse is Memphis.. the city I was a cop in for 10 years.. with a crime rate 343% higher than the national average..

You've hit on what I consider a non-trivial problem in our justice system.

It has been a while since I looked at the data, but as I recall, the #1 determining factor on whether a convicted murderer got an appointment with the death chamber was the race/sex of the victim. Murder a young white woman of child-bearing years, especially if she's reasonably attractive and more especially if she already has a couple youngsters, you're almost guaranteed to get the death chamber.

Black-on-black murder is often viewed as "misdemeanor murder," even by all-minority juries. It would seem we hold young black men in much lower esteem than any other demographic. If we valued young black men more, there'd be a lot more black folks on death row.

 

[RLD]

I worked along side CANSOF in 2007 in Kandahar. Absolutely great men. I was grateful to have them on a QRF we needed in the city. With that in mind I want to challenge a narrative I am over hearing. Did Canada, UK, Australia and others "help" the United States fight a GLOBAL extremist organization for our good or did you do it to protect your citizens. If I recall AQ despised the "West". Their hatred was not limited to the US. Maybe our country would have less national debt if we did not have to fund an ill-prepared coalition to protect themselves from an emerging GLOBAL threat. We can flip the script on who has supporting who in the relationship.

That is an entirely fair question, but not the one I was engaging in.

Someone suggested Canada and Canadians have "no guts", in yet another attempt to deliver a childish insult.

I think our track record shows otherwise.

I think Afghanistan was the classic example of the just war. However the inciting incident was very much 9/11, a particularly American tragedy. Legally it was America invoking NATO article five. From that perspective, American called her allies to action, and they came. And rightly so. It was a just war against a morally unambiguous enemy.

 

[RLD]

The same NATO countries that joined the fray against Al Queda, are now reluctant, and even vocally critical of the U.S operations against Iran.
Why? Because it would be seen as helping Trump, regardless of the existential threat that Iran has always been thru state sponsored terrorism, and the potential for possessing nuclear weapons.
No doubt Iran has its sleeper cells spread across the globe, just waiting for that opportune moment.

Could that be because some people view the war in Afghanistan as a very different moral/legal/factual situation than the current war?

Trump having treated all these countries like shit over the past few years doesn't help matters either. Perhaps if he had built up some good will with some of America's traditional allies he would have been able to produce a different result. He didn't. His favour bank is pretty much empty around the world. He has made his personal brand toxic in most of the west, which makes it very tough for a politician in most NATO countries to be seen as supporting him. Just ask Orban.

 

[Brent in Az]

Said to have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer

 

[roverandbrew]

That is an entirely fair question, but not the one I was engaging in.

Someone suggested Canada and Canadians have "no guts", in yet another attempt to deliver a childish insult.

I think our track record shows otherwise.

I think Afghanistan was the classic example of the just war. However the inciting incident was very much 9/11, a particularly American tragedy. Legally it was America invoking NATO article five. From that perspective, American called her allies to action, and they came. And rightly so. It was a just war against a morally unambiguous enemy.

I would never say any of the partners were gutless. They all were willing to commit the ultimate sacrifice for their nation. I would argue many senior leaders in the coalition, both military and political had a different risk calculus than the US. The individual service members are all truly great. I will always stand up against anyone who says otherwise.

 

[mdwest]

I would never say any of the partners were gutless. They all were willing to commit the ultimate sacrifice for their nation. I would argue many senior leaders in the coalition, both military and political had a different risk calculus than the US. The individual service members are all truly great. I will always stand up against anyone who says otherwise.

Completely concur...

To say I was unimpressed with many of the ISAF leadership I ran into while working in Kabul (I was in the ISAF HQ compound at least weekly, if not daily, for much of 2007, and the fairly regularly in 2008, 2009, and 2010) would be an understatement..

But.. if Im honest, I was pretty unimpressed with some of the US leadership I worked with in Afghanistan during that same time frame as well..

I worked fairly closely with Brits, French, Germans, Italians, Canadians, and of all things, Mongolians (and a few others) at different times during that time period.. At the individual service member level I was actually very happy with the professionalism and general attitudes of the guys on the ground.. Even the Greek engineers we did some work with were pretty great guys (although I think their officer corps might be among the worst in the entire world)..

 

[roverandbrew]

Could that be because some people view the war in Afghanistan as a very different moral/legal/factual situation than the current war?

Trump having treated all these countries like shit over the past few years doesn't help matters either. Perhaps if he had built up some good will with some of America's traditional allies he would have been able to produce a different result. He didn't. His favour bank is pretty much empty around the world. He has made his personal brand toxic in most of the west, which makes it very tough for a politician in most NATO countries to be seen as supporting him. Just ask Orban.

I will agree Trump is viewed by most as toxic and has not built a coalition to support a quicker "close of conflict" in Iran. I am wrapping up my Masters in International Affairs at Kings College London and Trump comes up daily and has the last couple of years.

 

[Brent in Az]

Front page of the China Street Journal.
Whitehouse Fight night.

 

[Brent in Az]

Could that be because some people view the war in Afghanistan as a very different moral/legal/factual situation than the current war?

Trump having treated all these countries like shit over the past few years doesn't help matters either. Perhaps if he had built up some good will with some of America's traditional allies he would have been able to produce a different result. He didn't. His favour bank is pretty much empty around the world. He has made his personal brand toxic in most of the west, which makes it very tough for a politician in most NATO countries to be seen as supporting him. Just ask Orban.

TDS spew carries has no legitimate weight. Trump has been bitch slapping countries and leaders that have long deserved it.
Now they are all butthurt.

 

[RLD]

TDS spew carries has no legitimate weight. Trump has been bitch slapping countries and leaders that have long deserved it.
Now they are all butthurt.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

Now if only he could "bitch slap" the guys who really deserve it, like Xi and Putin, rather than fawning over them like an obsessed school girl.

 

[Brent in Az]

Thank you for proving my point for me.

Now if only he could "bitch slap" the guys who really deserve it, like Xi and Putin, rather than fawning over them like an obsessed school girl.

Proving what point? That you are Captain TDS, and live in denial of reality?

 

[RLD]

Proving what point? That you are Captain TDS, and live in denial of reality?

The point that Trump has alienated many of America's traditional allies.

Unless you think "bitch slapping" makes people want to help you...

 

[Tanks]

The same NATO countries that joined the fray against Al Queda, are now reluctant, and even vocally critical of the U.S operations against Iran.
Why? Because it would be seen as helping Trump, regardless of the existential threat that Iran has always been thru state sponsored terrorism, and the potential for possessing nuclear weapons.
No doubt Iran has its sleeper cells spread across the globe, just waiting for that opportune moment.

Actually, those NATO countries have gone a lot more liberal and also have quite a bit Muslim politicians in power now, years later. As long as it is framed as evil America and Israel against a Muslim country they are not going to help. That is despite Iran attacking Gulf Arab countries.

 

[Newboomer]

Said to have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer
View attachment 766837

Terrible. I lost a brother to thyroid cancer. Hell of a disease. Wish her a successful treatment and recovery.

 

[Tanks]

Front page of the China Street Journal.
Whitehouse Fight night.
View attachment 766839

Did WSJ say anything incorrect?

 

[Brent in Az]

Did WSJ say anything incorrect?

They always do if you read further......

 

[Brent in Az]

The point that Trump has alienated many of America's traditional allies.

Unless you think "bitch slapping" makes people want to help you...

Trump & Doge also eliminated the Democrats global slush funds, as well as eliminated much of the American taxpayer milk bag that many of the countries can no longer guzzle from.
These other countries are acting just like the petulant child that you claim Trump to be.....

They want the oil, but they don't want to help get it.

 

[Brent in Az]

Did WSJ say anything incorrect?

Here's a good one from the MSJ spin doctors

 

[Corey0372]

@Corey0372 - It's about motivations.100 years ago the unwed birthrate in the US was very low. the only thing that keeps the unwed birthrate only 10 times what it was is the abortion rate. What changed? first among reasons was the government subsidizing single parent households. In addition the system dis-incentivized gainful employment. A better system would be to provide the "safety net" without the incentives for undesired behaviors and dis-incentives for desired behavior. the system which best accomplishes this is what Milton Friedman referred to as a Negative income tax. In short, every US citizen over 18 years of age would receive a monthly payment that would be of an amount suitable to maintain minimum standard of living. The payments for children age 0 to 17 would be pro-rated. No other subsidies or payments would be made. These payments would be made regardless of the persons income or marital status. Any person could choose to live at the minimum level or could increase his/her standard of living by seeking gainful employment. Income taxes would be deducted from earnings at a flat rate. As his/her earnings increased he/she would reach the point where the taxes paid equaled the monthly payment so it would be a zero sum- but there would be no change in the monthly payment- no penalty for having a job as is the present welfare system. Even liberals such as George McGovern embraced this system. the only differences between the conservative and liberal models is the conservatives want a stand alone while the liberal want it IN ADDITION to all the other food, rent, auto repair, healthcare and related systems as well as a larger monthly payment.

Oh I totally understand there's better ways to deal with the problem. I just look at it like if my garage was on fire I'd probably start spraying it with my garden hose...... while waiting on the fire dept to get there. I agree that a system that incentivizes unemployment or not getting married isn't a very good one, but I wouldn't want to eliminate a suboptimal system (in this case) until the better one is ready for implementation.