NationStates

Thermodolia wrote:

Natapoc wrote:
I see you desire a debate over semantics.

Debate denied.

I don't care. The CIA does it job and they do it well.

Thermodolia wrote:

Natapoc wrote:
I see you desire a debate over semantics.

Debate denied.

I don't care. The CIA does it job and they do it well.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Uxupox wrote:Damn those 15,000 students defeated the great Mujaheddin that bested the Soviet forces. Looks like the power of knowledge triumphs over firepower any day.

Dedication trumps divided firepower. The Mujahideen were largely fighting amongst themselves before the arrival of the Taliban as a serious threat. See: ISIS v. Iraq, particularly in the early days of the war. Not only that, but as the quote I literally just provided mentioned, they suffered devastating defeats before Pakistan upped their game in supporting them. Here, let me quote it for you, again, since clearly the first time didn't register:

The Taliban's early victories in 1994 were followed by a series of defeats that resulted in heavy losses which led analysts to believe that the Taliban movement as such might have run its course. Pakistan, however, started to provide stronger military support to the Taliban. On September 26, 1996, as the Taliban with military support by Pakistan and financial support by Saudi Arabia prepared for another major offensive, Massoud ordered a full retreat from Kabul to continue anti-Taliban resistance in the Hindu Kush mountains instead of engaging in street battles in Kabul. The Taliban entered Kabul on September 27, 1996, and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Many analysts like Amin Saikal describe the Taliban as developing into a proxy force for Pakistan's regional interests.

Natapoc wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I don't care. The CIA does it job and they do it well.

The rise of nationalism and the enthusiastic support of the new left for violent, secretive government agencies concerns me more than anything trump has yet done as president. I want the old left back!

Natapoc wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I don't care. The CIA does it job and they do it well.

The rise of nationalism and the enthusiastic support of the new left for violent, secretive government agencies concerns me more than anything trump has yet done as president. I want the old left back!

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Natapoc wrote:
I see you desire a debate over semantics.

Debate denied.

Says the person who pointed out a semantic point and when rebuffed you just went "whatever".

In any case, your hypothesis that Trump would reorganize the CIA and FBI over him not receiving intel is not necessarily something I am concerned about. What I am concerned about is what is the intel community going to do about it. Because it doesn't really matter what form does Trump's retaliation to the CIA and other intelligence agencies is, the intelligence community is still going to have to take a decision as to how to act from here on out in regards of the president.

Uxupox wrote:The fact is that the Taliban only won because they were supported by the majority of the tribal population be it Pashtuns, Tajiks, Aimaq and so on and so forth.

The Soviet Union did not have this capability to enforce their will on the native population and they lost because of their failure to adapt to the circumstances.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Natapoc wrote:
The rise of nationalism and the enthusiastic support of the new left for violent, secretive government agencies concerns me more than anything trump has yet done as president. I want the old left back!

I've always been of the thought that violent, secretive government agencies are a necessary evil.

Have I criticized them? Yes, I have. But as much as I criticize them, one thing I cannot criticize them for is that they're useless. They're not.

Natapoc wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
Says the person who pointed out a semantic point and when rebuffed you just went "whatever".

In any case, your hypothesis that Trump would reorganize the CIA and FBI over him not receiving intel is not necessarily something I am concerned about. What I am concerned about is what is the intel community going to do about it. Because it doesn't really matter what form does Trump's retaliation to the CIA and other intelligence agencies is, the intelligence community is still going to have to take a decision as to how to act from here on out in regards of the president.

Ignoring your attempt to draw me into a semantics debate, I agree with most of your post.

Thank you for getting to the point. But the intelligence community is not autonomous. It is not their role to decide who gets information. This is dictated by the relevant committees, and ultimately the president. The CIA will not go "rogue" on the president and anyone within the CIA who attempts to do so would be advised to be very careful how they went about it.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Uxupox wrote:The fact is that the Taliban only won because they were supported by the majority of the tribal population be it Pashtuns, Tajiks, Aimaq and so on and so forth.

Oh, so they were a democracy, now?

No, the reason the Taliban won was because they came in at the right time and employed the right terror tactics.

The Soviet Union did not have this capability to enforce their will on the native population and they lost because of their failure to adapt to the circumstances.

The SovUnion had the capability to enforce their will. They didn't have the will to enforce their will. Look at the actual statistics of the invasion of Afghanistan - the Soviets weren't losing conventionally. They didn't value Afghanistan highly enough to endure the (comparatively low) casualty rates and international condemnation. The Taliban were willing to make those kind of sacrifices, and more, and so succeeded where the SovUnion failed.

Natapoc wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
Says the person who pointed out a semantic point and when rebuffed you just went "whatever".

In any case, your hypothesis that Trump would reorganize the CIA and FBI over him not receiving intel is not necessarily something I am concerned about. What I am concerned about is what is the intel community going to do about it. Because it doesn't really matter what form does Trump's retaliation to the CIA and other intelligence agencies is, the intelligence community is still going to have to take a decision as to how to act from here on out in regards of the president.

Ignoring your attempt to draw me into a semantics debate, I agree with most of your post.

Thank you for getting to the point. But the intelligence community is not autonomous. It is not their role to decide who gets information. This is dictated by the relevant committees, and ultimately the president. The CIA will not go "rogue" on the president and anyone within the CIA who attempts to do so would be advised to be very careful how they went about it.

Page 1 wrote:In general, CBO found that the labor force outcomes of male Gulf War II veterans ages 22 to 44 were about the same as those of civilian men.

Page 2 wrote:Male veterans who were functionally disabled were much more likely to be in the labor force, and less likely to be unemployed, than civilian men with functional disabilities.

Natapoc wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
I've always been of the thought that violent, secretive government agencies are a necessary evil.

Have I criticized them? Yes, I have. But as much as I criticize them, one thing I cannot criticize them for is that they're useless. They're not.

I did not say they are useless. They have been quite useful for spreading death and violence to the direct benefit of the few.

Thermodolia wrote:

Natapoc wrote:
Ignoring your attempt to draw me into a semantics debate, I agree with most of your post.

Thank you for getting to the point. But the intelligence community is not autonomous. It is not their role to decide who gets information. This is dictated by the relevant committees, and ultimately the president. The CIA will not go "rogue" on the president and anyone within the CIA who attempts to do so would be advised to be very careful how they went about it.

The CIA does decide what they will tell the president. They have the duty to protect information and if they feel that the president isn't going to protect that information then they are well within their right to protect the information from him and give it to a different executive

Uxupox wrote:The tribes of Afghanistan literally abandoned the Mujaheddin when the "new and improved version" of them rolled to town.

The Soviet Union did not have the capability. Every time they secured an area and left it the Mujaheddin just took it back and this cycle would constantly repeat. They weren't losing conventionally because the war did not employ conventional style warfare. It was asymmetrical. There were no battle lines to be fought but areas to defend and FOB's to employ. The control of the southern areas of Afghanistan where the Mujaheddin were concentrated was virtually impossible for the Soviets even if they were supporting the local government.

Thermodolia wrote:

Natapoc wrote:
Ignoring your attempt to draw me into a semantics debate, I agree with most of your post.

Thank you for getting to the point. But the intelligence community is not autonomous. It is not their role to decide who gets information. This is dictated by the relevant committees, and ultimately the president. The CIA will not go "rogue" on the president and anyone within the CIA who attempts to do so would be advised to be very careful how they went about it.

The CIA does decide what they will tell the president. They have the duty to protect information and if they feel that the president isn't going to protect that information then they are well within their right to protect the information from him and give it to a different executive

Natapoc wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:The CIA does decide what they will tell the president. They have the duty to protect information and if they feel that the president isn't going to protect that information then they are well within their right to protect the information from him and give it to a different executive

It seems the CIA everyone here seems to love so much disagrees: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nation ... from_trump

"The CIA does not, has not, and will never hide intelligence from the president, period. We are not aware of any instance when that has occurred" - CIA Director Pompeo.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Natapoc wrote:

It seems the CIA everyone here seems to love so much disagrees: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nation ... from_trump

"The CIA does not, has not, and will never hide intelligence from the president, period. We are not aware of any instance when that has occurred" - CIA Director Pompeo.

As I said, they don't have to withhold it. I don't think they would anyways.

But they can find other ways to protect data and people who provide said data aside from withholding.

Galloism wrote:Back up the giant salt truck, but Buzzfeed is reporting two Israeli officials are livid over Trump sharing their info with the Russians.

Uxupox wrote:

Galloism wrote:Back up the giant salt truck, but Buzzfeed is reporting two Israeli officials are livid over Trump sharing their info with the Russians.

I'd like to trust but uh isn't Buzzfeed something akin to infowars?

Galloism wrote:Back up the giant salt truck, but Buzzfeed is reporting two Israeli officials are livid over Trump sharing their info with the Russians.

Uxupox wrote:

Galloism wrote:Back up the giant salt truck, but Buzzfeed is reporting two Israeli officials are livid over Trump sharing their info with the Russians.

I'd like to trust but uh isn't Buzzfeed something akin to infowars?

Vassenor wrote:

Galloism wrote:Back up the giant salt truck, but Buzzfeed is reporting two Israeli officials are livid over Trump sharing their info with the Russians.

Similarly at least one European nation is considering ceasing intel sharing with the USA.


Good job.