American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS (Archive)

[Looch City]

Why would we tell the enemy what type of warfare we're going to wage??

It'll be a surprise obviously.

[CaptainCrunch]

Let me put it this way.


With a George Bush or Obama or Clinton their reactions to a Military problem, a lost battle, mass casualties is somewhat predictable.

With Trump I don't know what his escalation point is and how far it will go.

while previous presidents respond to IED's with new tech to sniff it out, drones, drone strikes etc. This president might order a village rounded up and imprisoned or executed.

Lets say the American's went to war with Iran and Iran who does have a stock of chemical weapons gases American Troops. Do you think Trumps reaction would be the same as any other modern president?

OR lets say we get into the end game and we see a shattered Iran being fought over by different insurgent groups targeting each other and American Forces? How's Trump going to handle it? A Surge? Mass imprisonments and executions? A b-61 dial a yield gravity bomb?

[SportsJunky]

Anyone catch Tucker Carlson interviewing Bill Nye on Fox tonight about climate change? Carlson is a petulant child. Bill Nye was interrupted every time he tried to answer a question. Sad.

[FlamesAddiction]

Just look at the trouble they had in Iraq where at least a third to a half of the population cooperated and the soldiers undressed and went home. I don't think Iran would fold nearly as easily nor would vast resgions allow an occupation.

At the very least, the cost would be high, both human and economic. I doubt the US would stomach it for long.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Anyone catch Tucker Carlson interviewing Bill Nye on Fox tonight about climate change? Carlson is a petulant child. Bill Nye was interrupted every time he tried to answer a question. Sad.

I can't believe you sat through that. Just the very concept screams "avoid at all cost" television.

That being said, I wish Bill Nye would stop making political talk show appearances. He's not an expert, he didn't even pursue graduate level education... he's a children's entertainer. I was seriously hoping that Tyson would usurp the spot of "go to science guy" for these network appearances because he's not only a legitimate genius but will plainly set out the areas he's not an expert on. Apparently though he turns down interviews where the topic isn't physics because he's not, for example, a climatologist. Nye seems to have no such qualms.

[Language]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I can't believe you sat through that. Just the very concept screams "avoid at all cost" television.

That being said, I wish Bill Nye would stop making political talk show appearances. He's not an expert, he didn't even pursue graduate level education... he's a children's entertainer. I was seriously hoping that Tyson would usurp the spot of "go to science guy" for these network appearances because he's not only a legitimate genius but will plainly set out the areas he's not an expert on. Apparently though he turns down interviews where the topic isn't physics because he's not, for example, a climatologist. Nye seems to have no such qualms.

Tucker Carlson is the absolute worst. Don't see how people fall for his shtick. Anytime he brings a guest on with a dissenting opinion, his go to move is to snicker at their response whenever he gets proven wrong, and cuts the interview. It's incredibly annoying to watch.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I can't believe you sat through that. Just the very concept screams "avoid at all cost" television.

That being said, I wish Bill Nye would stop making political talk show appearances. He's not an expert, he didn't even pursue graduate level education... he's a children's entertainer. I was seriously hoping that Tyson would usurp the spot of "go to science guy" for these network appearances because he's not only a legitimate genius but will plainly set out the areas he's not an expert on. Apparently though he turns down interviews where the topic isn't physics because he's not, for example, a climatologist. Nye seems to have no such qualms.

The problem is few scientist are great commutators where Bill Nye is, and scientists like this and encourage him. Tyson has him doing segments on his Star Talk and one of the main hosts for Star Talk All-stars.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Language

Tucker Carlson is the absolute worst. Don't see how people fall for his shtick. Anytime he brings a guest on with a dissenting opinion, his go to move is to snicker at their response whenever he gets proven wrong, and cuts the interview. It's incredibly annoying to watch.

He is preaching to the choir...fox news viewers eat it up

[polak]

Originally Posted by Language

Tucker Carlson is the absolute worst. Don't see how people fall for his shtick. Anytime he brings a guest on with a dissenting opinion, his go to move is to snicker at their response whenever he gets proven wrong, and cuts the interview. It's incredibly annoying to watch.

Sounds like talking to Trump Supporters in person too.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

The problem is few scientist are great commutators where Bill Nye is, and scientists like this and encourage him. Tyson has him doing segments on his Star Talk and one of the main hosts for Star Talk All-stars.

He's kind of stopped being a great communicator though. He's gotten pretty surly and sanctimonious in the last few years.

[flylock shox]

Watched the George W. interview today and the thing that struck me most was how much more intelligent he seems than Trump.

How much more intelligent he seems than the current US president.

A couple of years ago, I would have given 100 to 1 odds against my being able to say something like that in my lifetime.

Tomorrow, Beavis and Butthead are coming to Vancouver for the official opening of the Trump tower here. Hoping our local protesters put on a good welcome for them and people in the city boycott the tower and it's tenant businesses until that Trump sign comes down. It's like a booger hanging on the lip of the city.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by nik-

He's kind of stopped being a great communicator though. He's gotten pretty surly and sanctimonious in the last few years.

I don't listen to him much on the political shows, unless he's on Real Time or the Daily show (which he doesn't do much). But on Star Talk and Planetary Society podcasts I find him to be a great communicator.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

The problem is few scientist are great commutators where Bill Nye is, and scientists like this and encourage him. Tyson has him doing segments on his Star Talk and one of the main hosts for Star Talk All-stars.

I should actually listen to Star Talk more. But in principle, this is actually fine - if he's a host, great. He has enough of a knowledge base and enough charisma to deal with an expert and hopefully get good information out of them while creating a watchable interview. But he's simply not qualified to be supplying the primary content for a show (or a segment on a news channel) about science. Of any kind.

Originally Posted by nik-

He's kind of stopped being a great communicator though. He's gotten pretty surly and sanctimonious in the last few years.

It's that, but for me it's even more that he says obviously dumb and indefensible things from time to time, like suggesting that theParis attacks and the Syrian refugee crisis were because of climate change. Seriously, #### off with that, you're just killing the credibility of climate science, and given how ideologically charged that issue is anyway (for no good reason) that's just not helping.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I should actually listen to Star Talk more. But in principle, this is actually fine - if he's a host, great. He has enough of a knowledge base and enough charisma to deal with an expert and hopefully get good information out of them while creating a watchable interview. But he's simply not qualified to be supplying the primary content for a show (or a segment on a news channel) about science. Of any kind.

It's that, but for me it's even more that he says obviously dumb and indefensible things from time to time, like suggesting that theParis attacks and the Syrian refugee crisis were because of climate change. Seriously, #### off with that, you're just killing the credibility of climate science, and given how ideologically charged that issue is anyway (for no good reason) that's just not helping.

Most science shows that I watch and touch on climate shows, talk about how decreased food supply due to global warming, would cause decreased stability and the start of the Arab Spring was due to food costs, caused by drought.

That being said, drawing a derict causality from global warming to these terrorist attacks ignores a lot of other factors. You can definitely say global warming has played role though.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just look at the trouble they had in Iraq where at least a third to a half of the population cooperated and the soldiers undressed and went home. I don't think Iran would fold nearly as easily nor would vast resgions allow an occupation.

At the very least, the cost would be high, both human and economic. I doubt the US would stomach it for long.

If the US invades Iran they wont be planning on occupying much, it will be an utter destruction of Iran's military and economic base in the first week, mostly from the air, bridges, roads, transportation etc followed by a quick push through to the oil regions to block the wells and destroy the oil infrastructure and nuclear and then out,

I doubt there'd be a US soldier in the country after a month, the idea would be to destroy the country economically for a decade or more, not occupy

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

What? In a conventional war? The US would run over Iran in a few days.

I don't know who gets to decide what "conventional" means, but we've heard this story before.

If it goes like the last few few adventures, if they were to invade Iran tomorrow, the "running over" will still be going on in 2032.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Let me put it this way.


With a George Bush or Obama or Clinton their reactions to a Military problem, a lost battle, mass casualties is somewhat predictable.

With Trump I don't know what his escalation point is and how far it will go.

while previous presidents respond to IED's with new tech to sniff it out, drones, drone strikes etc. This president might order a village rounded up and imprisoned or executed.

Lets say the American's went to war with Iran and Iran who does have a stock of chemical weapons gases American Troops. Do you think Trumps reaction would be the same as any other modern president?

OR lets say we get into the end game and we see a shattered Iran being fought over by different insurgent groups targeting each other and American Forces? How's Trump going to handle it? A Surge? Mass imprisonments and executions? A b-61 dial a yield gravity bomb?

Here's the thing about the US military and their supposed tactical advantage. They have proven to be very poor at being adaptable, especially to the insurgent warfare being used against them of late. The last thing they want to do is get bogged down into a ground war. As someone else pointed out, this would not be a situation where a third to half the population just roll over and expose their soft under-belly for the American forces. Iran will put up an actual fight.

Here's why I think an engagement with Iran is a losing proposition for the US.

1) Home court advantage. They know their terrain and they have a solid network of defense systems in place. The Americans may be able to take them out, but it is going to be costly to do so. Also, the US will not have a cooperative country from which they can establish a ground base to attack from and establish their supply line. They are going to have to do it likely without support or face problems from the local population where their supposed operational base is located. This should force the Americans to a carrier group base of operations, and that plays into the hands of the Iranians.

2) Intelligence. Not many countries will be sharing intelligence with the US. This will be viewed as a war of aggression and the world is already looking at the US under Trump with a great deal of skepticism. Unless Iran is to strike first, the allies are going to stay on the sidelines. They've seen this movie before and they won't want to feed a dictator's ego. Israel will be the only major player to chip in, and they may be forced to the sidelines for fear of spreading any engagement. On the other side of the coin, Iran will get intelligence from its supporters. A weakened America, especially militarily, is good for everyone else's business.

3) Non-support at home. Sorry, but the American people have no taste for another war. We're still paying for two engagements and have no way out of Afghanistan. Without support at home the military has a major morale problem and does not perform well. This will be bloody and this will tough.

4) This is not some push over. Iran is not going to roll over and play dead. They have not been softened up through years of war with another country like Iraq was. They were not a collective of war lords like Afghanistan was. The Americans are not going to have a massive coalition to use like they have in the past. Iran will ready and will fight hard. The American's air superiority will be challenged immediately. Iran only has 137 interceptors, but coupled with their air defense network they could make the life of American pilots difficult.

5) The ground game. The US is going to have a very tough time trying to run a ground game in Iran. This isn't open desert like Iraq. Iran is much more mountainous. Iranians will have the high ground advantage and their mobile defense pieces will play a bigger role that the US probably wants to admit. Iran also has a large number of tanks, 1,600+, and can draw the Americans into areas where they can use their home field terrain to their advantage.

6) The Persian Gulf. If the Iranians can force the Americans into the Persian Gulf as a basis of attack they are playing onto the Iranian's hands. If reports are accurate, the Iranians have advanced mine warfare technology deployed throughout the gulf. They also have a fleet of small, fast, and effective submarines to make his and run attacks. Then the Iranians have much feared Khalij-e Fars anti-ship missile. If the Iranians can force the Americans into the Persian Gulf, the Iranians can pinch down the Strait of Hormuz and have the battle group in a shooting gallery.

The Iranians would lose a great deal of assets in any engagement with the United States, but the US is going to leave battered and bloodied. The Americans will not win, any more than Iraq or Afghanistan were victories. In the Islamic world that is all that needs to be done. In the rest of the world, an act of obvious aggression would be greeted like the Nazis rolling into Poland. North Americans may be slow to learn from history, but Europeans certainly appear to have a pretty good memory. I don't think this plays out well for the US unless they use first strike WMDs, and then, it probably plays out worse in the geopolitical long run.

[DuffMan]

Trump wants to take someone's oil. Iran would do.

[GGG]

The one thing is true is the Americans did not try to 'win' Iraq, or Afghanistan. They tried to nation build. This is a much larger task. If the goal was to take out the Taliban and Saddam then the US won the wars, they removed the governments in charge.

They could be very successful in doing that in Iran but replacing the government with something better would lead to failure.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

The one thing is true is the Americans did not try to 'win' Iraq, or Afghanistan. They tried to nation build. This is a much larger task. If the goal was to take out the Taliban and Saddam then the US won the wars, they removed the governments in charge.

They could be very successful in doing that in Iran but replacing the government with something better would lead to failure.

You're a fool if you think that this was a victory/success for United States. All they did was remove governments that stabilized those particular countries. Whether you like those governments or not, they provided stability in those regions. The loss of the sectarian government in the Middle East was a complete and total failure on the Americans part. They will be much better off with Saddam still in power than the vacuum which exists currently in Iraq. The amount of blowback, the sectarian violence, the creation of Isis and its grip in the region, has been a total loss for the United States. When you couple that with the crippling additions to the national debt, almost $3 trillion, there is no way this can be argued as anything but an embarrassing military and diplomatic debacle on the part of the United States.