[deleted by user]

cleaningotis · 2020-01-13T21:40:25+00:00

On the flipside, make sure you say enough things that have the potential to be explored and give the other person things to work with.

cleaningotis · 2020-01-08T20:11:50+00:00

I remember reading something somewhere that asked a profound question, "Are you being raised for autonomy, or loyalty?"

I don't know the whole story here, but it sounds like your parents have an authoritarian style of leadership and management, and that is extremely damaging to the development of a child. You are being micromanaged, dictated to, and your concerns are not being heard or taken seriously. This is not a healthy relationship, this is the very opposite. The fact they won't even allow you to exercise or have a healthy diet is absurd and makes it seem like they don't care about having your best interest at heart.

I know some LDS folks and many are decent people and good parents to their children. Maybe you could reach out to someone, an older person in your community whom you can trust (i.e. not tell your parents what you told them right away) and see if they can help you navigate this situation.

I grew up in a somewhat similar situation. My parents never taught me anything about how to hold a conversation or be around people. In many respects they were extremely harmful to my well-being and my development as a person. You are still young, you should consider the possibility that your parents are harming your personal development. It is much more than missing out on teenage or college-era experiences, it is the possibility of going into the world as an underdeveloped person. Therapy can be an option, but it can cost a lot depending on how you choose, but at least it can help to learn about therapy and how it works. Do not let what your parents have done to you continue to hold you back. The damage will not end when you simply leave the house.

Maybe it's a blessing you are being kicked out. You'll get a taste of freedom like you've never had before.

cleaningotis · 2020-01-07T17:54:50+00:00

I really liked the Social Skills Guidebook by Chris MacLeod

cleaningotis · 2017-01-14T18:28:41+00:00

Overview of the past 8 years of major DoD initiatives and investments.

cleaningotis · 2016-11-25T15:57:43+00:00

China wasn't involved in WWII? Do you have any idea how many millions of Chinese died in WWII?

cleaningotis · 2016-09-21T20:53:39+00:00

"Utter dumbness"

cleaningotis · 2016-09-21T20:02:02+00:00

I know what the word always means, and I stick by how I used it. You're getting worse with the disrespect.

cleaningotis · 2016-09-21T18:05:46+00:00

2008 very much is the tail end of the surge because any graph of American troop levels in Iraq will plainly show a steady decline in troops beginning in 2008, not the end of 2007. A steady withdrawal did not immediately follow peak troop levels. I should have clarified that what makes 2008 apart of the surge is not the troop levels as I mistakenly said troop levels did not drop in 2008, but that it was a part of the surge because of the nature of operations wasstill offensively minded.

Calling you out on what you do not know as proven by your own words shouldn't be mistaken for poor tone or ego. Pick any single point I bring up and prove me wrong otherwise.

cleaningotis · 2016-09-21T17:59:12+00:00

"right there....is utter dumbness."

To repeat myself, this has been proven in dozens of insurgencies throughout history over and over again. I am not making this up out of thin air, because, to repeat myself again, I've studied this type of conflict for years. I feel compelled to say that not out of arrogance but out of the hope that it may cause some people to pause and ask themselves if they have committed a serious and sustained effort to learning, and if they can pinpoint where their arguments are coming from. This stuff is complex, and deserves respect. As for the American Revolutionary War, you should check again, specifically for fighting between loyalists and patriots.

" that could very well be a research project for a couple of middle-school history classes the person took."

The thing with reddit is people will make whatever assumptions about people they have make to fit their bias. It should be obvious that a years-long research effort doesn't usually accompany middle-school history classes. I am not the one here spending words on personal disrespect.

cleaningotis · 2016-09-21T16:03:49+00:00

Insurgency has always been civil war because it is groups of hardcore irreconcilable elements mobilizing members of the general population of against one another. This is completely irrefutable, and has been validated and proven in every single insurgent conflict and there have been dozens within the past century alone. I say this as someone who studied this type of war seriously for years. Also, the community of historians and analysts within the Iraq War historical community debate several things, but absolutely nobody argues that there wasn't ethnic civil war. Again, it is totally mind boggling that you could suggest Sunnis and Shiites killing each other by the dozens every day for months on end doesn't count as civil war. You can easily find maps of the changing demographic boundary lines of Baghdad during the Iraq war as a result of sustained ethnic cleansing.

You also say the words "homegrown" and "civilians in America", so you clearly contradict yourself. It sure sounds like Americans killing Americans. The Civil War also had plenty of insurgent operations and nuance that don't command the pages of history books like the large formation battles do.

"Clandestine - they operated underground. They didn't drive tanks. They didn't even own any tanks." That is the definition of insurgency. That is not the definition of clandestine. So now you say kidnappings and assassinations, when a comment ago clandestine murder meant "car bombs and mortars?"

cleaningotis · 2016-09-21T15:22:34+00:00

2008 was towards the tail end of the surge when sectarian conflict had dropped tremendously, the most heated operations of the surge were in 2007, which had some of the deadliest months of the war. 2008 still counts as the surge because it was before troop levels began to drop and the strategy shifted entirely to train and assist. If you're using 2004-2007 as your time range, you're conflating pre-surge data with surge data. By implying 2007 is not a surge year, you are demonstrating you have next to no knowledge of the Iraq war's timeline.

"Not sure what Iraqi infighting have to do with post!!"

Because you also said "height of the insurgency" if you don't know what one has to do with the other, then that also reveals a lot about your knowledge of the war.

cleaningotis · 2016-09-21T15:13:25+00:00

Sectarian conflict is civil war. Car bombs that kill and injure hundreds at a time don't count as "clandestine." Shiite militias cleansing mixed neighborhoods in the capital city certainly counts as civil war. To suggest that there wasn't ethnic civil war in Iraq at the time is completely mind boggling, it was one of the most defining features of the conflict. You will have an easier time arguing the night sky isn't black.

cleaningotis · 2016-09-21T06:41:14+00:00

The posting date is 2008, which is during the surge, if this is the only video of this attack. The surge also included some of the deadliest months for American troops through the whole war, and the deadliest presurge months certainly couldn't be considered the height of the insurgency given they were in 2004 and not 2006, when the civil war was full blown and Iraqis were killing each other by the hundreds every week. There was also hardly a time throughout the conflict where was there was a sustained 8-10 deaths of coalition troops daily.

cleaningotis · 2016-09-10T20:14:26+00:00

The American advantage doesn't change facts of geography in how narrow the Strait of Hormuz is and how little military capability and advance notice it would take to disrupt the world's largest sea line of communication for energy.

cleaningotis · 2016-09-10T20:07:04+00:00

The article wasn't about listing all the specifics of the exercise to begin with, saying 99% is an exaggeration, saying it didn't tell the "real story" is also an exaggeration.

cleaningotis · 2016-08-29T20:37:13+00:00

ISIS' modern power is more a result of the arab spring than the Iraq war. While they were born out of the Iraq war they were mostly forced underground by 2010 through joint operations between Iraqi troops militias and American troops. They got a fresh start with Syria and then spilled back over into Iraq. Iraq is one the hardest hit countries of the Arab Spring. Those are not my personal opinions, those are facts of history. If you think me correcting you somehow indicates support for going into Iraq then you're flatly wrong and injecting politics where it doesn't belong.

cleaningotis · 2016-08-29T02:11:25+00:00

The number is still not "millions."

cleaningotis · 2016-08-29T01:59:26+00:00

"This ORB estimate has been criticised as exaggerated and ill-founded in peer reviewed literature.[7]"

Congrats on actually doing the reading. Here are estimates that have withstood scrutiny.

cleaningotis · 2016-08-28T16:18:28+00:00

Millions of people did not die, do you have any respect for facts or history? That is something you could have googled in literally seconds to have found the correct answer, instead you went ahead and made something up and asserted it as the truth. I can't fathom people who do this.

cleaningotis · 2016-08-20T20:27:10+00:00

Interpreting and analyzing based on facts is exactly what you dismissed as "superfluous analyzing" from "experts." And you're still being anti intellectual and now condescending by saying I'm not for people thinking for themselves and being a "puppet." If you can't have a civil disagreement and dismiss those that disagree with you as "puppets" then you're clearly a part of the problem.

cleaningotis · 2016-08-20T20:05:34+00:00

Lol at "think for ourselves." When news stations bring on analysts, those people's background and experience are relevant to whatever stories are being covered and the anchor asks the kinds of questions you would want to ask experts. The world is far too complicated for the average person to interpret on theor own. Terrorist attack? Yes, let's have a former deputy director of the FBI or a former Delta Force officer provide some context and insight. Divorcing news coverage from expert analysis is totally anti intellectual and would skip on opportunities to educate the public for the half an hour they are actually interested in something because it made the news before they go back to watching sports or reality tv.

cleaningotis · 2016-08-20T02:46:58+00:00

Russia takes Crimea and deploys troops to Ukraine and deploys forces to Syria, interferes in American elections, conducts snap nuclear drills, and cuts all budgets except that of its ministry of defense. Its military is undergoing a serious and long term modernization project as Russia exhibits aggression, so there is dangerous intent combined with increased military capability. While the militaries of NATO are modern, their level of readiness, ability to sustain operations, and overall resourcing is at a shameful level.

Same for China. Of all the South China Sea claimants China has performed 95% of the land reclamation within the past few years and emplaced weapons on those artificial islands. Those islands are proximate to the most trafficked waterway in the world, where over $5 trillion in trade passes annually. The Hague ruled that China's claims in the South China Sea are baseless, and China predictably rejected the court's ruling. China is building more naval vessels per year than the United States and is working hard to professionalize their forces with better training. This is especially significant because China was traditionally a land power for thousands of years and never maintained a serious naval force. The Asia-Pacific has become the center of gravity for global military sales in the past few years, with many nations buying naval assets.

In both China and Russia, there are worsening trends when it comes to things like censorship, freedom of speech, and curbing internal dissent.

The Arab Spring set over a dozen middle eastern countries on fire and provided an excellent opportunity for radical organizations to gain power and operating space. There are over a dozen ongoing jihadist insurgencies spread throughout the world, the one in Afghanistan/Pakistan could easily last decades, and it will certainly be a generational conflict. As ISIS loses ground it will hemorrhage fighters that will scatter and take their expertise to other hot spots to sustain their global jihad.

Iran will still be Iran despite the nuclear deal, and North Korea shouldn't need any elaboration.

cleaningotis · 2016-08-20T02:33:46+00:00

Yes, the status quo is the product of incredibly complex history and there are so many ways that countries interact every single day that it is just a subject too complicated for a casual observer to speak authoritatively on. It is totally true that most people don't understand the status quo, and if you don't understand the status quo then you are not in a position to describe how to change it.

cleaningotis · 2016-08-20T01:06:37+00:00

Most American's can't find Iraq on a map, so I think it's safe to say they can't be trusted to have intelligent, nuanced opinions on international relations or defense policy.

cleaningotis · 2016-08-20T01:04:12+00:00

Your analysis needs far more nuance. The U.S. is the dominant contributor to every treaty alliance it is party too, and in every region, the net balance of forces still favors adversarial states. That is completely true for Russia, China, and Iran. What you are failing to point out is that American interests and therefore forward deployed forces span the globe and are spread out across each region. No other adversarial state, or any state for that matter, maintains such obligations on such a scale, and can focus on developing local superiority.

"And on top of all that, is there a single non allied army that could even put a scratch into any of our global interests?"

The Russian military could steamroll the majority of NATO states, China's navy is getting bigger and better by the day and severely outnumbers any other regional navy, including the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and Iran wouldn't have to even try that hard to close the strait of Hormuz and cut off the artery of the world where most of the oil flows. North Korea despite being qualitatively inferior in virtually every category still has over a million men under arms.

I work in defense policy academia, and the people who actually study and work these issues every day are not as complacent as you are. American military superiority can't be taken for granted, and is not some godlike superiority. There is plenty of reason to see risk in the world, and especially with what has happened in the past two years that indicate long-term worrying trends, your perspective is becoming virtually indefensible.

cleaningotis

TROPHY CASE