What happened in Africa

Crickets.

A thousand peaceful villagers were overrun by Muslim extremists?

Muslim extremists?

I thought so.....cannot say terrorists.

2seaoat wrote:Muslim extremists?

I thought so.....cannot say terrorists.

Goddamn you, Seaoat, I HATE it when I have to agree with you!

2seaoat wrote:Muslim extremists?

I thought so.....cannot say terrorists.

Ok... Muslim Islamic extremist innocent killing terrorists. Too fucking cowardly to wear a uniform.

What's your point?

Proverbs 26:4

http://99u.com/articles/25151/dont-feed-the-haters-the-confessions-of-a-former-troll

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnrampton/2015/04/09/10-tips-to-dealing-with-trolls/#65af930054f4

The point was obvious, and I might add clearly made thanks to your help.

As you know... I'd prefer that no US troops were in any sovereign nation.

But nothing is unique to "today" that didn't exist during Obama's expansion... except the roe.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2017/10/do_not_try_to_turn_niger_into_trump_s_benghazi.html

American forces have been in Niger since 2012. Currently, there are about 800. Their primary mission is to advise and assist Niger’s armed forces in their fight against terrorist groups that attack their citizens. This means that American soldiers are not technically at war with the terror groups; they are there to assist the Nigeriens with tasks like locating the enemy, developing strategies and tactics, and building relationships with local leaders, whose knowledge is essential for getting accurate information about terrorists’ activities in a very remote part of the world.

The Niger mission is part of the growth of the U.S. military presence in Africa that began under the Bush administration and greatly expanded under Obama. American forces are deployed to numerous countries undertaking a wide variety of missions, almost all of which fall under the “advise and assist” mode of operation. While many of these missions are secretive for obvious reasons, their existence is not.

All I want now is a joint congressional committee which starts with the proposition that perhaps America is not being defended efficiently, and that hearings should be held proposing a new paradigm of defensive alignments and redefinition of Keenans zones of influence. I do not want to leave America Toothless from doing what they are doing in Africa, but I want a paradigm where there is consistency in defining our critical interests and what is the necessary level of budgeting which can achieve perhaps a smaller footprint.

We are a paper tiger like the French fighting the last war with strategies and deployments which are not realistic in light of smaller nation states acquiring the capability to strike us and destroy us. Is it wise to fight the war of nuclear proliferation on the korean Penisula, or to concentrate on defensive strategies to protect America. The quality of our Military fighting third world turds has lowered the standard where we cannot even operate ships without collisions or deploy troops in foreign sovereign nations and kill innocent civilians.

Until we have a dialogue on the failure of the American military over the last 70 years to down size pursuant to our founding fathers guidance, while at the same time actually building less expensive defenses for America.

2seaoat wrote:All I want now is a joint congressional committee which starts with the proposition that perhaps America is not being defended efficiently, and that hearings should be held proposing a new paradigm of defensive alignments and redefinition of Keenans zones of influence.  I do not want to leave America Toothless from doing what they are doing in Africa, but I want a paradigm where there is consistency in defining our critical interests and what is the necessary level of budgeting which can achieve perhaps a smaller footprint.

We are a paper tiger like the French fighting the last war with strategies and deployments which are not realistic in light of smaller nation states acquiring the capability to strike us and destroy us.  Is it wise to fight the war of nuclear proliferation on the korean Penisula, or to concentrate on defensive strategies to protect America.  The quality of our Military fighting third world turds has lowered the standard where we cannot even operate ships without collisions or deploy troops in foreign sovereign nations and kill innocent civilians.

Until we have a dialogue on the failure of the American military over the last 70 years to down size pursuant to our founding fathers guidance, while at the same time actually building less expensive defenses for America.

The American military is NOT just defending the United States. It's enforcing the Pax Americana which has prevented a reprise of World Wars I and II. You sound like Trump with that isolationist nonsense.

Can you say domestic muslim islamic extremist terrorist murderer of innocent civilians?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/01/us/new-york-attack/index.html

No... I didn't think so.

The American military is NOT just defending the United States. It's enforcing the Pax Americana which has prevented a reprise of World Wars I and II. You sound like Trump with that isolationist nonsense.


Nonsense. I am a foreign relations realist. I do not believe zones of interests which have not been redefined, nor followed in the last twenty years as we invade the middle east, and think we have a valid reason to be in South Korea.

There is no such thing as isolation in today's world. There is only being safe and secure, or being at risk. We have never been at greater risk in our history. We are a paper tiger with expensive technology which is top heavy and assumes that a third party opponent will follow the rules of the Post WWII nation state paradigm where the 1940 genie was controlled by the same. Billy Mitchell was ran up the flag pole for telling the truth that turn of the century battleships were powerless in the war to come, and today we invest multi trillions in carrier groups which are completely vulnerable as a third world nation could vaporize our carrier groups with tactical nukes, and then make the argument to the opponent that if you strike our nation with Nukes, we have second strike capability.........paper tigers owned lock stock and barrel by MIC, Ike warned us.....our founding fathers warned us......When you send offensive colonial invading armies to threaten........somebody will take us up on that threat......unafraid

2seaoat wrote:

Nonsense.  I am a foreign relations realist.  I do not believe zones of interests which have not been redefined, nor followed in the last twenty years as we invade the middle east, and think we have a valid reason to be in South Korea.

There is no such thing as isolation in today's world.  There is only being safe and secure, or being at risk.  We have never been at greater risk in our history.  We are a paper tiger with expensive technology which is top heavy and assumes that a third party opponent will follow the rules of the Post WWII nation state paradigm where the 1940 genie was controlled by the same.  Billy Mitchell was ran up the flag pole for telling the truth that turn of the century battleships were powerless in the war to come, and today we invest multi trillions in carrier groups which are completely vulnerable as a third world nation could vaporize our carrier groups with tactical nukes, and then make the argument to the opponent that if you strike our nation with Nukes, we have second strike capability.........paper tigers owned lock stock and barrel by MIC, Ike warned us.....our founding fathers warned us......When you send offensive colonial invading armies to threaten........somebody will take us up on that threat......unafraid

You're not a realist, you're a foreign relations FANTASIST!

First off, we have a very good reason to remain in S. Korea: The people there are much better off, by any measure, than the people in N. Korea. Absent our presence, N. Korea would invade and destroy a peaceful, prosperous economy. No one with any sense--a group that apparently excludes you--would prefer to live in North Korea rather than South Korea. DUH!

The world has enjoyed 70 years of relative global peace, a period longer than any in the last 2000 years. We managed to defeat the Soviet Union and free a number of Eastern European nations from under their yoke WITHOUT A WAR! I defy you to find any half-century of conflict between two world powers that ended in the victory of one over the other WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED. This was a direct result of our military and economic power.

Your idiotic comment about a third world country destroying an American carrier group with a tactical nuke is evidence of your paucity of knowledge. THERE ARE NO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES WITH NUKES. DUH!

Only eight nations have nuclear weapons: the US and Russia, China, France, and the UK, India and Pakistan, and Israel.  Now, it looks like North Korea will be added to the list.

The Pax Americana has been an unqualified success and is due, in part, to the overwhelming power of our military forces.

The Pax Americana has been an unqualified success and is due, in part, to the overwhelming power of our military forces.

Nonsense.  There has been non stop war and conflict since the end of WWII.  North Korea is not a developed nation.  It is a third world country.  Iran is not a developed country.  It is a third world country.  The use by either nation of a tactical nuke against our carrier groups would make America a toothless tiger who has NOT prepared to properly defend this nation, but rather has spent tens of trillions of dollars to create a colonial offensive military fed by mercenaries and controlled by a Military Industrial Complex which is assuring their profits will NOT be interrupted.  We have never been more at risk.  We are the French after WWI with this idea that top heavy and expensive weapon platforms somehow secure this nation.......they do not.

2seaoat wrote:The Pax Americana has been an unqualified success and is due, in part, to the overwhelming power of our military forces.

Nonsense.  There has been non stop war and conflict since the end of WWII.  

You're being DELIBERATELY obtuse--I hope. The fatality scorecard, civilian and military, for WWII is somewhere north of 50 million, probably closer to 80 million.

We haven't had that many corpses from warfare ALL TOGETHER since then. You also seem to ignore the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the most egregious colonialist empire in history. There's no way you can deny that the world has been a safer place since WWII under the American regime.

Didn't they make you take History at whichever diploma mill you "graduated" from?

The Soviet Union colonist empire.....wtf

2seaoat wrote:The Soviet Union colonist empire.....wtf

I was right! You never studied a word of history. I'm talking about: Bulgaria, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia and the Baltics: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. You know, the nations the USSR occupied and took over after WWII, the Soviet "Sphere of Influence" you jabber on about.

There's also East Germany and the Berlin Wall, remember them? "Ich bin ein Berliner", "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" and all that?

Write the administration at whatever Podunk "college" you went to and ask for your money back!