• 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!

Yemen Forbids U.S. from Conducting More Raids, Ciiting Trump's First One[W:98]

Cardinal said:
Is that your binary understanding of everything? Why not have a positive relationship with Iran or North Korea? Is having a good relationship with them better than having a bad relationship with them? Or by asking that question, have you suddenly rediscovered nuance?
Click to expand...

"Nuance"?? My form of "nuance" is using an ax instead of a splitting maul. :twisted:
 
PeteEU said:
There is 24 hours between the 2 articles....minimum and you accuse NYT for fake news. So things could not have changed in those 24 hours?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's sloppy. It was a turd article when it was born. It didn't change it's smell in 24 hours. The NYT didn't change their article after 24 hours. It still hasn't changed their article. They just left the turd sit out there.
 
faithful_servant said:
We have laws that state that we do not use assassination. Either change the laws or don't break them.
Click to expand...

There's an executive order that prohibits political assissinations. Killing an enemy combatant isn't a political assassination. If that were the case, all those sniper kills that have been scored over the past 15 years would be illegal.
 
apdst said:
There's an executive order that prohibits political assissinations. Killing an enemy combatant isn't a political assassination. If that were the case, all those sniper kills that have been scored over the past 15 years would be illegal.
Click to expand...

These aren't enemy combatants in a war zone, they are political leaders. This is where that line gets drawn. When we start targeting people outside of combat, that's assassination. I think that there is a a time and place for this kind of thing, but right now, the legal status of that action is that it's not allowed. Change the law or follow the law.
 
faithful_servant said:
These aren't enemy combatants in a war zone, they are political leaders. This is where that line gets drawn. When we start targeting people outside of combat, that's assassination. I think that there is a a time and place for this kind of thing, but right now, the legal status of that action is that it's not allowed. Change the law or follow the law.
Click to expand...

They aren't members of a recognized government.
 
apdst said:
They aren't members of a recognized government.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. They are not people who are in a war zone in active combat. That means that they are off limits according to how we conduct ourselves in this kind of thing. I understand and in some cases support the idea that cutting off the head is best way to stop certain people, but until we change our laws to reflect that need, we shouldn't be using this kind of tactic.
 
faithful_servant said:
That doesn't matter. They are not people who are in a war zone in active combat. That means that they are off limits according to how we conduct ourselves in this kind of thing. I understand and in some cases support the idea that cutting off the head is best way to stop certain people, but until we change our laws to reflect that need, we shouldn't be using this kind of tactic.
Click to expand...

That requirement doesn't exist in the law.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Ooh, a whole eleven aircraft. That's.....not exactly a dent in the German war machine.

The Swiss irked the Nazis. Hitler apparently called them "the pimple on Europe's face" or something to that nature. But that didn't stop them from stashing all that looted gold in the country.

But they weren't scared of them. Generally speaking, if the Nazis were scared of somebody they'd hit first, as hard as they could, and go from there.

Of course, prior to World War One you didn't have the air power necessary to aid a breakthrough.....
Click to expand...

Well considering Swiss had a very small standing army (still does) engaging Germany was more then most at the time in 1940. The Nazi's hated the Swiss, it wasn't "irked". Switzerland was surrounded by the Axis by 1941. It was totally cut off. It still needed to survive, just as Sweden and Portugal had to. But this was by 1942 in which Swiss did business with Axis and Allies.

Typically that is what Nazi's would do. But Swiss's defense of Switzerland was one of hold the line on the border for a short period while.. blowing every bridge and shifting troops into mountains to hold every pass to the last man and major forts with commanding positions over the major valleys. Basically, making Switzerland 360 degree kill zone the deeper you went into Switzerland.

In WW2 you couldn't break through by air power either. Attack bombing the highest peaks in the Alps? That would be a graveyard for fighters and bombers.
 
austrianecon said:
Well considering Swiss had a very small standing army (still does) engaging Germany was more then most at the time in 1940. The Nazi's hated the Swiss, it wasn't "irked". Switzerland was surrounded by the Axis by 1941. It was totally cut off. It still needed to survive, just as Sweden and Portugal had to. But this was by 1942 in which Swiss did business with Axis and Allies.

Typically that is what Nazi's would do. But Swiss's defense of Switzerland was one of hold the line on the border for a short period while.. blowing every bridge and shifting troops into mountains to hold every pass to the last man and major forts with commanding positions over the major valleys. Basically, making Switzerland 360 degree kill zone the deeper you went into Switzerland.

In WW2 you couldn't break through by air power either. Attack bombing the highest peaks in the Alps? That would be a graveyard for fighters and bombers.
Click to expand...

Portugal wasn't in any danger of a Nazi invasion. They were facists themselves. And Franco wasn't going to try anything, even if he did receive German aid to do so. He was still recovering from the civil war.

The Swiss continued doing buisness with the Nazis even after 1942, however.

As I recall, the Maginot Line looked good on paper too--- but the Germans had a nasty habit of figuring out how to deal with fortifications. It would have been costly, undoubtedly, but I highly doubt the Swiss could have held.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Portugal wasn't in any danger of a Nazi invasion. They were facists themselves. And Franco wasn't going to try anything, even if he did receive German aid to do so. He was still recovering from the civil war.

The Swiss continued doing buisness with the Nazis even after 1942, however.

As I recall, the Maginot Line looked good on paper too--- but the Germans had a nasty habit of figuring out how to deal with fortifications. It would have been costly, undoubtedly, but I highly doubt the Swiss could have held.
Click to expand...

Portugal was worried about it's colonies and the UK taking them over.

Yes, Switzerland was totally surrounded by Nazis until 1945. They needed to trade (food, metals, equipment) to keep their economy afloat. Swiss National Bank bought more gold from the US then they did Germany during that period as well.

Maginot Line was poorly designed and had a huge flank open, called Belgium and Netherlands. Switzerland's defenses were in the Alps, something the Nazi's couldn't just go around. You had to travel through the valleys. You had to go through the kill zones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom