• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

your point I thought was you were not using logic? How shall we challenge this? I agree. You haven't used logic. :shrug:

My point was that in order for things to work to your specifications, we would have to dispense with the republic and have a military dictatorship. At the least, some kind of military state.

You haven't made a point yet that wasn't logically flawed. Why should we be interested in your faulty reasoning?

A premises can't be logically flawed. You would know that if you knew logic.
 
My point was that in order for things to work to your specifications, we would have to dispense with the republic and have a military dictatorship. At the least, some kind of military state.




Uhm, how did you arrive at this strawman? :lol:
 
No I call that a bad decision. He didn't continue, he didn't say "no" to air support in the middle of a fight.

:doh
You missed your calling, I'd say torturing logic is your forte.
 
My point was that in order for things to work to your specifications, we would have to dispense with the republic and have a military dictatorship. At the least, some kind of military state.

Our president already is commander in chief of the military. A dictatorship is unnecessary, given that.

To be honest, your comment is so stupid that it's difficult to take it seriously.
 
Uhm, how did you arrive at this strawman? :lol:

Mainly because you get upset at any harm the troops experience, especially if it is the result of bureaucracy, or cordial international relations, or political factionalism, and are always demanding for decisions which circumnavigate such events. Bureaucracy and political factionalism are guaranteed in a diverse representative democracy, and cordial international relations are desirable. Functional management of these sometimes requires things like the denial of air support -- the reasons aren't always good (in fact, quite often they are not), but that is part of the mixed bag of a republic. Your concern actually transcends any given person (well, I don't really believe that, but let's pretend) because it is a problem with a system -- the system of republican government. Provided things like freedom of speech and dispersed political power are allowed, there will always be some disjointedness between the demands and and priorities of the military and that of a government ruled by the people.

There is only way way to get around that disjointedness. Military dictatorship: fuse the state and the military into one and narrow their focus to that of a single person, hopefully a competent one. If there is bureaucracy, be it law or regulation, he ca skip it. If there is political factionalism and freedom of speech and political participation and division, he can crush it by force. If you offend an ally or trading partner, rely on no form of diplomacy other than intimidation and if that doesn't work, he can invade -- draft from the general population if you have to, and appropriate to private sector industries to manufacture sufficient weaponry.

It worked pretty well for the Spartans and the early Third Reich. I don't think Americans would like it though.

Accordingly, by doing this, if any soldier dies, then it won't be because of factionalism, bureaucracy, or overtures to some other nation.

Our president already is commander in chief of the military. A dictatorship is unnecessary, given that.

To be honest, your comment is so stupid that it's difficult to take it seriously.

The word is: networking. It is possible Obama might do whatever he wants now without any consideration of what politicians in every other level of government think, but in doing so, they might return the favor later when he needs their help for something else. That's what I mean by factionalism.
 
Last edited:
Mainly because you get upset at any harm the troops experience, especially if it is the result of bureaucracy, or cordial international relations, or political factionalism, and are always demanding for decisions which circumnavigate such events. Bureaucracy and political factionalism are guaranteed in a diverse representative democracy, and cordial international relations are desirable. Functional management of these sometimes requires things like the denial of air support -- the reasons aren't always good (in fact, quite often they are not), but that is part of the mixed bag of a republic. Your concern actually transcends any given person (well, I don't really believe that, but let's pretend) because it is a problem with a system -- the system of republican government. Provided things like freedom of speech and dispersed political power are allowed, there will always be some disjointedness between the demands and and priorities of the military and that of a government ruled by the people.

There is only way way to get around that disjointedness. Military dictatorship: fuse the state and the military into one and narrow their focus to that of a single person, hopefully a competent one. If there is bureaucracy, be it law or regulation, he ca skip it. If there is political factionalism and freedom of speech and political participation and division, he can crush it by force. If you offend an ally or trading partner, rely on no form of diplomacy other than intimidation and if that doesn't work, he can invade -- draft from the general population if you have to, and appropriate to private sector industries to manufacture sufficient weaponry.

It worked pretty well for the Spartans and the early Third Reich. I don't think Americans would like it though.

Accordingly, by doing this, if any soldier dies, then it won't be because of factionalism, bureaucracy, or overtures to some other nation.



The word is: networking. It is possible Obama might do whatever he wants now without any consideration of what politicians in every other level of government think, but in doing so, they might return the favor later when he needs their help for something else. That's what I mean by factionalism.





:lol: you had to go with that strawman didn't you....


Obama is the CiC, read our constitution if you are confused how this works.
 
:lol: you had to go with that strawman didn't you....


Obama is the CiC, read our constitution if you are confused how this works.

If you want to draw from the U.S. Constitution to make an argument which invalidates mine, feel free to do so. That would be pretty consistent with the spirit of this website, seeing as how it is a debate forum.
 
Last edited:
If you want to draw from the U.S. Constitution to make an argument which invalidates mine, feel free to do so. That would be pretty consistent with the spirit of this website, seeing as how it is a debate forum.

:doh

just....wow.
 
If you want to draw from the U.S. Constitution to make an argument which invalidates mine, feel free to do so. That would be pretty consistent with the spirit of this website, seeing as how it is a debate forum.




So you think we need a military dictatorship in order for Obama to get his head out of his ass and make a decision on afghanistan?


I don't think I actually "need" to do anything here. :lol:
 
:doh

just....wow.

I have a suspicion of what he means, but I'm not going to waste my time guessing after it. He can elucidate his own points and make his own arguments. However, if it is what I think, I already have a response.

So you think we need a military dictatorship in order for Obama to get his head out of his ass and make a decision on afghanistan?

My point wasn't about Afghanistan so much as your attitude toward the described process in general, since you express frustration over any incident comparable to it. In the case of Afghanistan, Obama can make any number of decisions, from immediate to withdrawal to signing the orders for the 40,000 troop deployment. Either way, he is going to piss off a number of other politicians (even in his own party -- you can always count on the Republicans to be against him) and the American people -- which is certainly going to compromise some of his future projects. The reason is because every politician has their own "plan" for themselves and their constituents, and if Obama acts contrary to anyone's plan, then they are going to retaliate by making light of his -- if only because they need to send the message that they (or rather, the little club(s) of politicians they are working in on any issue, be it energy or finances) are not people Obama wants to make light of. They will need to emphasize that they are necessary and need to have their interests respected. Of course, this will happen at the expense of other people. End result is, any potential decision Obama makes is going to have some kind of political repercussion that could comprise any one of his future endeavors, if not all of them. This is the problem with factionalism that the Founding Fathers were always agonizing about.

Person A wants i
Person B wants i2
Person A doesn't need Person B to get i or i2
Person B wants person A to get i2 instead of i
Person A gets i
Person B gets pissed
Later, person A wants n, but needs help
Person B can help Person A get n, but has insufficient personal interest
Peron A begs B to help him
Person B cites the i/i2 affair

In short, factionalism makes unrelated things related and reduces efficiency.

And in answer to your question, yes: if Obama had the powers of military dictator, he wouldn't have to worry about how his military decisions relate to everything else he is doing. He can't just kill, imprison, or exile any person who get in his way.
 
Last edited:
I have a suspicion of what he means, but I'm not going to waste my time guessing after it. He can elucidate his own points and make his own arguments. However, if it is what I think, I already have a response.

Are you under the mistaken impression that you are contributing meaningfully to this thread?
 
If we had the appropriate CAS as requested by those on the ground, there would be less dead US soldiers, not more in Somalia.

I'm not sure CAS would have been totally appropriate; considering the tactical situation. You are referring to the events of 3-4 OCT, 1993, correct?
 
I'm not sure CAS would have been totally appropriate; considering the tactical situation. You are referring to the events of 3-4 OCT, 1993, correct?




Yes, I am. CAS and other support assets were indicated and needed in the Battle of Mogudishu. Clintion did not want to spend the political capital on it.
 
Are you under the mistaken impression that you are contributing meaningfully to this thread?

If you have to ask that question, you probably aren't yourself. Our meaningfulness or lack thereof speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am. CAS and other support assets were indicated and needed in the Battle of Mogudishu. Clintion did not want to spend the political capital on it.

Not sure CAS would have been a viable option, considering METT-TC...now those tanks/APCs and Brads that were denied, those were desperately needed.

The TF did use CCA from 160th, which was far more appropriate than CAS would have been (at least in a TIC situation), outside from surgical strike capability.
 
Not sure CAS would have been a viable option, considering METT-TC...now those tanks/APCs and Brads that were denied, those were desperately needed.

The TF did use CCA from 160th, which was far more appropriate than CAS would have been (at least in a TIC situation), outside from surgical strike capability.





I think a spectre would have made things a little bit easier thier. Then again, sounds like I was USAF, and you? Army? :lol:
 
I think a spectre would have made things a little bit easier thier. Then again, sounds like I was USAF, and you? Army? :lol:

I was in the Army and I think a spectre gunship would have been what the doctor ordered.
 
I think a spectre would have made things a little bit easier thier. Then again, sounds like I was USAF, and you? Army? :lol:

Roger...and a Forward Observer. Spectre is a beast! If they could have utilized it in an AO that they knew had no civilians, then it would have been appropriate. Plus, you can only use it at night. I prefer CCA myself.
 
I was in the Army and I think a spectre gunship would have been what the doctor ordered.

11, 13 or 18 series?

Of course you are disagreeing with me b/c you don't like me.

You can only use the AC-130 at night and with NO ADA threat whatsoever.

The bad guys had already shot birds down that day, IIRC.
 
Roger...and a Forward Observer. Spectre is a beast! If they could have utilized it in an AO that they knew had no civilians, then it would have been appropriate. Plus, you can only use it at night. I prefer CCA myself.




Battle went through the night. The request was denied.



I prefer an a-10 anyday. then again, I was a ROMAD... ;)
 
Last edited:
11, 13 or 18 series?

I'm not an aircraft officianado, but I want the one what got all them guns with high rates of fire.

Of course you are disagreeing with me b/c you don't like me.

No, I'm disagreeing with you because I think you're wrong. I'm too discplined to let my personal feelings effect my opinions. But, then again, I don't even know you, so how can I dislike you?

You can only use the AC-130 at night and with NO ADA threat whatsoever.

The bad guys had already shot birds down that day, IIRC.

Sounds like it would have been perfect for Mogadishu. I don't think the enemy's RPG's could have touch a spectre, especially at night.
 
Battle went through the night. The request was denied.

No surprise...if they denied tanks, CAS wasn't happening.

then again, I was a ROMAD... ;)

Mad respect, bro. I have had an incredible experience with every JTAC I have served with. Absolute professionals.
 
Back
Top Bottom