Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Presidents Ranks by Military Management


vcczar
 Share

Recommended Posts

This category attempts to weight presidents by engagement in just wars, unnecessary wars, military improvements, seeking peace, wars won/lost/inconclusive, use of troops domestically, avoiding major wars, etc., etc. I should also note that I dock points for all "Indian Wars" that were primarily land grabs. Historically significant military achievements and disasters award points/penalties. I might end up including CIA engagements, which would probably lower a lot of presidents from Eisenhower through Biden. 

  1. Lincoln
  2. FDR
  3. Washington
  4. Polk
  5. Eisenhower
  6. Reagan (this surprises me, but he actually avoided several wars, engaged in no major wars, despite military build up and rhetoric)
  7. J Adams
  8. McKinley
  9. Madison
  10. Tyler (he's peacefulness is his only strength as a president)
  11. Arthur (presided during historic modernization of the navy)
  12. Trump
  13. Wilson
  14. Carter
  15. GHW Bush
  16. Obama
  17. Jefferson
  18. Taylor
  19. A Johnson
  20. Garfield **Shouldn't count**
  21. Cleveland (1st term)
  22. B Harrison
  23. T Roosevelt
  24. Coolidge (Peaceful, but also started dismantling the military in a failed effort to bring about international peace)
  25. Clinton (Gets docked points for avoiding humanitarian crises)
  26. Biden **Shouldn't count**
  27. Monroe
  28. JQ Adams
  29. Jackson
  30. Fillmore
  31. Cleveland (2nd term)
  32. Harding
  33. Hoover
  34. Van Buren
  35. WH Harrison **Shouldn't count**
  36. Truman
  37. JFK
  38. Grant
  39. Taft
  40. Ford
  41. Hayes
  42. GW Bush
  43. Nixon
  44. Pierce
  45. LBJ
  46. Buchanan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

I agree with this, for the most part. Definitely, George W. Bush and LBJ, are spot on, following outmoded and failed doctrine that led to disastrous, drawn-out, botched, and LOST wars with unnecessarily wastes of life and spending of international cache for often questionable, disingenuous, self-serving, and even treasonous casus belli and forms of conduct and management, regardless of @MrPotatoTed, @Dobs, and @Timur's defense of their war efforts and motives to various degrees. Reagan and George HW Bush I also agree (at least with regard to the U.S. military, itself - the terrorist groups and horrid tyrants, who were no better, and in many of the cases, worse, than the Socialist leader they were replacing, or supposed to be, they armed and propped were war crimes and crimes against humanity - and one genocide, the Guatemalan one - they committed by proxy), but who each actually won of the ONLY TWO military victories by the U.S. since the end of WW2 - Grenada and Desert Storm.

However, Obama and and Trump are too high, I think. Obama practically carried on Bush's policies faithfully, and even expanded and worsened them, though got little attention or flack for it due to the issues his opponents hammered him on, but yet he's 26 places higher? Trump was very unpopular among his generals, who seemed to be viewing him as incompetent and an embarrassing burden and high potential liability. In fact, when that, "coup talk," was going around in late 2020, there were suddenly those who were a lot more rational, even if still believing the possibility, that coup might actually, and very realistically, despite the original panicked scare narrative, be against the Idiot Orange Ogre who had heaped abuse upon, and shown utter incompetent arrogance to the general-class officers, and NOT a long-standing member, and at times, Chairman Military Affairs Committee. So, I think Obama and Trump are too high.

Obama and Trump are mostly where they are because there's a lot of presidents with approximately the same points, but they're just 1 pt worse. 

Here's what Obama is getting scored for:

He gains points for "Just War" (combating ISIS and other legitimate terrorists), no major ground war, killing Bin Laden

He loses points for leaving war unresolved, unjust military occupation (boots on the ground), inconclusive Arab Spring involvement

Trump is much about the same, but he gets points for avoiding engagement in Syria when the pressure was on (he did fire missiles though), and he gets points for the ISIS caliph's death, but not as many points as Obama gets for Bin Laden, considering he ordered a successful attack on US soil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

I find the Bin Laden and al-Baghdadi things to be an odd turn in the modern day. The military doctrine that capturing or killing an enemy leader is a monumental victory in and of itself kind of died with the Middle Ages, because in modern nations, "there's always someone next in line to take leadership." Plus, assassination of enemy leaders by highly trained specialists is LITERALLY the cowardly Path of the Ninja (that's EXACTLY what the classical Ninja were, and did) - not the Path of the Honourable (or even Respectable) Warrior. Plus, I feel they should been capture and faced trial for their crimes, instead - as should have Bush, Obama, and Trump - if any justice remained in this world. But, tragically, justice - such a fundamental ideal of civilization - is becoming a pipe dream.. 😞

Bin Laden was not the leader of a modern nation -- he merely aspired to become one.  

As for ninjas...I don't know what in the actual fuck you are talking about.  ;c)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Patine said:

A colourful way of showing a distaste and condemnation for assassination as a tactic to take any pride in, be considered to have any justice or belong in the actions of civilized and law-loving peoples, and to be anything but cowardly and loathesome - the actions of barbarians and outlaws...

Oh for christ's sake.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Patine said:

No, He would definitely not approve of such vile tactics, either. First Degree Murder doesn't stop being an apex criminal offense just the government orders it and sends shadowy commandos. And it's no less a lowly and disgusting tactic that, as I said, barbarians and outlaws engage. Barbarians and outlaws, in fact, like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, who have made numerous cowardly and loathsome assassinations and assassination attempts (including at least two verified, but defused, attempts against Bush, himself - and I don't mean the shoe-throwing!), and though nothing of it.

But, I think there's something you don't seem to grasp. And neither does Bush, Obama, or their big allies, like Blair or Netanyahu, that's VERY important here. And that's the objectives of victory in this war. And, in this case, I refer to the obvious and pieced-together victory condition of these ISLAMIST TERRORIST GROUPS! Have you REALLY thought about what their view of objectives and victory, and the timetable, thereof, might be. Obviously there's the stirring up of chaos and terror in the first stage, and a global Islamic Caliphate, where everyone in the world converts to the warped, twisted, mutant mockery of Islam these groups preach, either willingly or by force, or have died or been enslaved for not doing so. But, OBVIOUSLY, there's a mid-part. I read an article by an Egyptian military and sociology expert whose a Moderate Muslim and Anti-Islamist Extremist, and who has put a very convincing case, and has gained a lot of support online, for what this mid-point is (and it's very important), even though almost all Western Governments and militaries, as well as those of Israel and India, disregarded it hand (probably for ulterior motives). And this theory, based on extensive profiling of these groups, what's known of their leaders, doctrines, and tactics, and studying the endless taped speeches their spokesmen like to make (often accompanying by recorded live executions and such) that they believe they have discerned, and it seems frighteningly credible. To create a war effort, of the sort, and with the emotional drives and fears, where the Western World believes that casting or suspending, or at least considering optional or easily dismissable, the high-minded principles of freedom, due process, right to dissent, and government of, by, and accountable to the people, and freedom from WW2-era disingenuous propaganda, everywhere, and using tactic that descend to their level, but with more technology and firepower, as a "necessity," with no stated limits, expiry, review, or compensation for those wrongly targetted, to fight such a war. If this is the case (and it seems VERY plausible to me - moreso than the idiotic "they hate our," and "they just want to destroy our culture," and other lamebrain things like that), the Western World has been LOSING the "War on Terror," at a steady clip, because Bush, Obama, Blair, Netanyahu, etc. have been handing victory to them ON A SILVER PLATTER! And while the craven, disgusting tactics of assassination were celebrated in the West for Bin Laden and al-Baghdadi, what you don't understand is how little of an overall dent, in the long term, it is to them, because they have this well-known martyr's complex based on a view of an after-life reward that's actually a warped, twisted, highly (and very manipulatively) malinterpreted corruption of the Qu'ran phrase in question. Can you grasp what I'm saying NOW?

I mean...no.  I literally can't.  Some of the things you said aren't even actual words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Have you tried looking them up in a dictionary? I have a hard-copy Webster dictionary on my bookshelf, and whenever my girlfriend hears a word from me she's unfamiliar with, she immediately goes to my shelf, looks it up, and carries on with the conversation.

Ha.  That was a remarkably condescending response from someone who can’t figure out what a paragraph is, but go ahead and look up “malinterpreted” in your dictionary and then report back to me with the definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Ha.  That was a remarkably condescending response from someone who can’t figure out what a paragraph is, but go ahead and look up “malinterpreted” in your dictionary and then report back to me with the definition.

I'd have to assume that malinterpreted would be the past tense version of the verb malinterpret, which, while not a dictionary word, would mean something like "Misinterpreted with malicious intent" or something along those lines.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

Mal- is a prefix that alters the verb or verb-like noun to show deliberate ill-intent, as in "malpractice," "malpheasance," and, "malcontent." I admit I used it for a modified word not normally so modified, but the prefix modifies it in the same way in usage. It's just that the more common, "misinterpreted," sounds like an honest mistake, frankly.

You condescendingly told me to look up your made up words in the dictionary, and when I called you out on it, you decide it's the English language that's wrong and not you.  Ha.  God bless this girlfriend of yours.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WVProgressive said:

I'd have to assume that malinterpreted would be the past tense version of the verb malinterpret, which, while not a dictionary word, would mean something like "Misinterpreted with malicious intent" or something along those lines.

Sure, if we're allowing for made-up words.  I certainly understood his intent with the made-up word, but I wasn't about to be chided to go look it up in the dictionary when it doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WVProgressive said:

All words are made up, and are useless when removed from context  😉

But I get what you mean, Pat could have definitely explained himself better rather than throwing a dictionary at you lol.

I mean, my majors are in communications.  I'd be fine with having the dictionary thrown at me -- if the word was actually in there.  But it would be preferable if he stopped the condescending attitude and just learned how to write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

I mean, my majors are in communications.  I'd be fine with having the dictionary thrown at me -- if the word was actually in there.  But it would be preferable if he stopped the condescending attitude and just learned how to write.

Ah, but then he could not rest upon his galaxy-brained chair at which all girlfriends and so-called communication majors grovel. Communications are beyond a man whose method of data transmission is truly Tralfamadorian. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

All words are made up, and are useless when removed from context  

 

Ha, I've said the same about holidays.  I always laugh at people who get riled up at Valentine's Day "just a made-up Holiday."

They're ALL made up!  Christmas, Thanksgiving, the 4th of July...do you celebrate weekends?  The whole damned CALENDAR is made up! ;c)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

Okay, now that we've gotten the hang-up on a minor, trifling part of my post rather than the real, meaningful part (the hang-ups you seem to love so much), what do you say on the meat and drink of what I was trying to say? Atypical root-word combinations on one word aside, I made an effort to parse the sentences better for you. So, what is your comment, there?

Let me point you back to something I said to you, approximately three years ago on the old forum:

I cannot read your messy typing.

Admittedly, sometimes it's more because I don't care enough about what you're saying to even try.  But more often, you do actually catch me in a jovial enough mood to make the honest effort, and I still can't make it through.  It's unintelligible.  

I mean, I can pick up the gist -- "Bush Bad".  But even the few parts where the words make sense, the ideas are still a mess.  Ninjas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

But the fact that it all comes down to JUST, "Bush Bad," and nothing else, just that simple, shows you just don't get it. And, frankly, at the same level of basic, dumbed-down, simplicity, a lot of what you say comes across as, "Bush Always Right." So, there's that.

It comes down to "Bush Bad" because you cannot effectively communicate your ideas and opinions.  And then you pretend it's because you're superior-minded, but really it's because you don't know how to use a paragraph or even proper punctuation.  I'm a hospital spokesman -- if my audience doesn't understand what I'm saying, it's not because they failed to keep up with me.  It's because I failed to express myself effectively to my audience.  You've mentioned before that you are a social worker -- I assume this must involve some level of communication with individuals who do not have higher education.  Do you try to make yourself understood to these people you're supposed to be helping?  Or do you order them to run off and find a dictionary too?  (Ignoring the reality that the word isn't even in there).  

You are a poor communicator.  To be fair, even if you were an excellent communicator, it's as unlikely that you could change my mind as it is that I could change yours.  But we could at least compare ideas and philosophies and have a deep, meaningful conversation now and then.  That is never going to happen, at your current writing level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Patine, I really do think it would serve you well to start making your writing more reader friendly, if your goal is to convince the other person. Nobody wants to read big blocks of text, no matter how truthful, or even convincing the arguments therein are. It doesn't even have to be anything major really, allow me to use your above rant as an example if I may.

Quote

No, He would definitely not approve of such vile tactics, either. First Degree Murder doesn't stop being an apex criminal offense just because the government orders it and sends shadowy commandos. And it's no less a lowly and disgusting tactic that, as I said, barbarians and outlaws engage. Barbarians and outlaws, in fact, like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, who have made numerous cowardly and loathsome assassinations and assassination attempts, and though nothing of it.

But, I think there's something you don't seem to grasp. And neither does Bush, Obama, or their big allies, like Blair or Netanyahu, that's very important here. And that's the objectives of victory in this war. And, in this case, I refer to the obvious and pieced-together victory condition of these Islamist terrorist groups! Have you really thought about what their view of objectives and victory, and the timetable, thereof, might be?

Obviously there's the stirring up of chaos and terror in the first stage, and a global Islamic Caliphate, where everyone in the world converts to the warped, twisted, mutant mockery of Islam these groups preach, either willingly or by force, or have died or been enslaved for not doing so. But, obviously, there's a mid-part. I read an article by an Egyptian military and sociology expert whose a Moderate Muslim and Anti-Islamist Extremist, and who has put a very convincing case, and has gained a lot of support online, for what this mid-point is, even though almost all Western Governments and militaries, as well as those of Israel and India, disregarded it out of hand. And this theory, based on extensive profiling of these groups, what's known of their leaders, doctrines, and tactics, and studying the endless taped speeches their spokesmen like to make that they believe they have discerned, and it seems frighteningly credible.

To create a war effort, of the sort, and with the emotional drives and fears, where the Western World believes that suspending, the high-minded principles of freedom, and using tactics that descend to their level, but with more technology and firepower, as a "necessity," with no stated limits to fight such a war. If this is the case, the Western World has been losing the "War on Terror," at a steady clip, because Bush, Obama, Blair, Netanyahu, etc. have been handing victory to them on a silver platter! And while the craven, disgusting tactics of assassination were celebrated in the West for Bin Laden and al-Baghdadi, what you don't understand is how little of an overall dent, in the long term, it is to them, because they have this well-known martyr's complex based on a view of an after-life reward that's actually a warped corruption of the Qu'ran phrase in question. Can you grasp what I'm saying now?

By spacing out the text more, cutting down on the asides, getting rid of most, or all instances of writing in all caps, and reducing the number of redundant adjectives you use, I think you can really improve your writing. I don't want to offend you, by doing this, I just want to try, and offer a helping hand to a friend, to prevent further arguments, which, I think, mainly stem from an inability, or refusal of other posters to actually read what you write.

Apologies for the ping @MrPotatoTedbut would you say that my editing, of the above post has made it easier for you to digest, and contemplate the points that Patine made in it? If not then I have completely failed in my efforts, and I apologize for the time I've wasted, both to myself, and to the two of you.

Edited by WVProgressive
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

@Patine, I really do think it would serve you well to start making your writing more reader friendly, if your goal is to convince the other person. Nobody wants to read big blocks of text, no matter how truthful, or even convincing the arguments therein are. It doesn't even have to be anything major really, allow me to use your above rant as an example if I may.

By spacing out the text more, cutting down on the asides, getting rid of most, or all instances of writing in all caps, and reducing the number of redundant adjectives you use, I think you can really improve your writing. I don't want to offend you, by doing this, I just want to try, and offer a helping hand to a friend, to prevent further arguments, which, I think, mainly stem from an inability, or refusal of other posters to actually read what you write.

Apologizes for the ping @MrPotatoTedbut would you say that my editing, of the above post has made it easier for you to digest, and contemplate the points that Patine made in it? If not then I have completely failed in my efforts, and i apologize for the wasted time

I appreciate the effort.  The mere addition of paragraphs certainly encouraged me to at least try to push through it.  I'd say the entire third paragraph could actually be removed and replaced with "I read this one thing that suggested..." (skip straight to the fourth paragraph).  The whole third paragraph seems to be about how qualified this author is, without ever naming the author or actually stating his qualifications.  People on the internet agree with him?  Well, people on the internet agree with Donald Trump, too.  People on the internet have never particularly impressed me.  ;c)

So, while there's still a lot of editing that would need to be done before I could focus more on the ideas being expressed than the poor way they're being expressed, this is indeed a big upgrade.

Edited by MrPotatoTed
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Patine said:

Okay, let me this. The War on Terror was almost certainly lost, not won, because the military and government leadership of the U.S. and other Western nations descended to the same despicable and atrocious levels of conduct and tactics as the terrorists we were fighting, which is believed by some analysts to be exaclyt what these terrorist want and part of their own victory conditions and objectives. And also the fact that they seem to have little regard for own casualties. How is that?

Much better!  I disagree, of course, but I was able to clearly read what you wrote.

In a realistic world where we couldn’t just snap our fingers and have everything we wanted, what would you have preferred be done both as a response to 9/11 and to ensure there wouldn’t be other attacks on that scale again?

Edited by MrPotatoTed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Patine said:

Not wage a war of the sort and with the tactics that drives more people into the arms of recruitment by the terrorist groups, because they view the West as know better (basically a "clean," war without drone attacks, strategic bombings and missile attacks of civilian centres, extensive use of commandos and assassinations, resorting to torture and crap in Black sites, expanding the war to countries not directly involved (like Iraq), and instead focusing on the actual terrorist groups and their member in laser-tight focus for apprehension and trial, not nation building, regime change, and crap). Also, not punishing their own citizens by suspending vital parts of Constitutional law and protections, due process, protection of privacy (warrantless, secret surveillance), and limits on Presidential power and authority - rules that are meant to be non-negotiable and not to be ignored or upended under any circumstances, and are legally beyond the U.S. President's rightful power, authority, or perogative to even do so. And, once the 9/11 offenders and their verified direct accomplices and enablers are apprehended - IMMEDIATELY end the operation. As immediately as Grenada and Desert Storm, as well as the Six-Day War, the Falkland War, and the 2008 Russo-Georgian War were ended.

I want to make sure I understood your pitch correctly:

* Send ground troops into extremely mountainous Afghanistan, without drone support

* No "commandos" -- I'm not sure how you're defining this, but you've previously in this thread objected to the tactics used by Seal Team Six in the raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout, even though that mission was an incredible success.  So I assume you're referring to...sending ground troops into extremely mountainous Afghanistan without drone support OR highly trained teams that could actually effectively clear caves and other highly dangerous terrorist locations in the safest way possible for everyone involved?

* I don't understand why you think we'd strategically bomb "civilian centres" in Afghanistan.  Unless perhaps you are not aware that that is exactly where these terrorist organizations tend to hide, because of the protection it affords them.  The terrorists do no care what happens to the civilians around them -- they use them as a human shield.

* The terrorist attacks were led primarily by the al Qaeda -- but al Qaeda and specifically Osama Bin Laden were being shielded and protected by the Afghanistan government, or "The Taliban."  Bin Laden and his forces had close ties to the Afghani military, and the Taliban refused to extradite Bin Laden -- not just for the 9/11 attacks, but also previously for US embassy bombings in the 1990s, despite being provided evidence of his guilt.  You're decrying "regime change" in Afghanistan?  They were a TEAM.

* "Apprehension and trial" -- we DID.  When possible.  But here's an interesting thing that happens when you try to arrest terrorists -- they shoot you.  And you know who else shoots you?  All of the guards they've surrounded themselves with.  And BEST case scenario, you somehow manage to get close enough to actually arrest them without having either killed them in self defense or getting yourself killed in the process -- surprise!  Suicide vest, now you're blown up.  Seriously -- this statement alone represents an extraordinarily childish view of the insane danger our troops faced in Afghanistan.  

So...your response to 9/11 would be to send in ground troops with no power, no backup, and no realistic mission.  Would you even bother giving them bullets, or was the whole plan to just let the troops die as quickly as possible?

Edited by MrPotatoTed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Patine said:

First Point - Amazingly, armies managed to fight in extremely dangerous, sometimes even mountainous, terrain and even win a statistically significant amount of the time from the beginning of recorded history until a few decades ago without any drone support. Funny that! They mustn't be as essential as you think.

Second Point - I'll deal with this one in a bit, as I'll need to formulate a good, cohesive response here.

Third Point - Yes, these terrorist groups do use human shields. And bombing them is exactly what they want the Western powers to do, and buys into their own victory conditions.

Fourth Point - As of October, 2001, Afghanistan was actually still in a state of civil war, where the Taliban mostly only had firm control in the southern, Pashtun-majority parts of the south, and tenuous or tentative control of areas in the north and west, as well as strongholds in northern cities (specifically the cities) of Kabul, Mazaar-e-Sharif, and a few others. The Northern Alliance and a few other groups were serious threats, and together controlled a quarter of the country at the time NATO troops set foot down and made contact with the Northern Alliance in a, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," sort of deal. The Taliban, "government," was not much an organized government as most nations, even many low-grade despotisms, know it, and their army was a band of thugs and bandits, including a large number of pre-adult teenage boys, were only galvinized to their zealous, guerilla, terrorist, tenacious defense by Al Qaeda, using the invasion of the country as a preaching point.

Fifth Point - Somehow, civilian police, without the full array of military equipment, armaments, and training, deal with this problem routinely.

That's a damned good point.  I agree, the obvious answer would have been to send civilian US police officers into the mountains of Afghanistan because being shot at by armies and blown up with suicide vests while clearing mountainous caves is exactly what US police officers deal with routinely.

I mean...for fucks sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Point missed again. I'm almost thinking you're getting as bad as that handyman on, "Newhart."

Point poorly communicated, then.  What were you trying to say, when you claimed that police are "routinely" shot at in the US, as a response specifically to my own point that terrorists not only shoot at the soldiers, but also have armies that shoot at our soldiers, and also wear suicide vests?

What, exactly, were you trying to suggest as the solution?

Or...did you just not CARE that your proposal would lead to an astronomical rise in US soldier deaths?  

Hell, for that matter -- what exactly do US police do as their "routine" response to being shot at?

Don't they shoot back?

Edited by MrPotatoTed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Are you at all aware of how well-armed street gangs and organized crime in U.S. cities are nowadays? It's not just whacko paramilitary extremists and mass shooters that benefit from lax gun laws. And, a growing tendency in the, "blaze of glory," mentality of violent criminals in the U.S. is very much noticeable. So, while suicide vests aren't an issue for civilian police (usually), compared to the weapons and tactics civilian police have on tap (even a city SWAT team is inferior to a U.S. Marine platoon in that area, except for subdual tactics and non-lethal weapons), the challenge and risks are equivalent, analogously and relatively. Do you see?

...no.  I think you're wildly misinformed on what the average US police officer actually deals with.  Most police officers will go their entire career without EVER having to fire their weapon outside of the gun range.  

For the few police departments that actually do have more serious threats from gangs in their areas, they DO have literal military equipment to help combat it.  Including drones.  I'm really surprised by how clueless your discussion on this topic is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

I didn't say ALL police forces. I am well aware that the Sheriff and his two Deputies of Nowhere County with 100 people on a good day does most of their work with traffic violations on the local highway that intersects the county. But, I'm also saying that big, high-crime city police have a different modus operandi of dealing with crime than acting like soldiers in a city under siege. Subdual tactics and weapons (tear gas, high-pitch stunning sound, batons, riot shields, etc.) are, ideally preferred to opening fire. A very high priority to taking in criminals alive is on the book, and, as we know, trigger-happy cops are starting to be successfully prosecuted (it's been in the news) - shooting to kill is meant to be last resort - at least ideally, speaking. And the drones police use don't have high-yield explosive capabilities - they're mostly meant for tracking suspects. There are still profound differences.

You want our soldiers to clear terrorists out of a cave in Afghanistan armed with batons.

This is such a stupid argument, I feel guilty for continuing the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate that you've made what I perceive to be a sincere attempt to improve your writing today.  As anticipated, it did allow us to have an actual conversation now about the merits of an idea rather than the need for paragraph breaks.

Unfortunately, the merits of your proposal are so lacking in the fundamental reality that gang members intend to survive and terrorists do not, that an actual mutual understanding still eludes us.

Until you become serious about the fact that the mountains of Afghanistan are not the same thing as downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, this is still not a real conversation.

Edited by MrPotatoTed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...