Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Duuvian]

It's true, the state and city could have asked for a bit more for the new stadium, and it sounds like they might not get as much of a share of the revenue either. The new one will employ about 400 more people though for a total of around 1100, and Detroit made $7million a year off home games at Joe Louis, so it's not like it's a black hole of money. If they make less from the new stadium that would be silly, I would agree. One more thing is that the State has pledged to cover the city's expenses; the only thing the city sacrificed was the sale of the land for the development, which they sold for $1 when surrounding plots sold for upwards of a million dollars according to one story I just read when looking for info on the issue to make this post. The state paying for it isn't perfect I know, but according to the articles competition for sports teams is fierce between cities since the 1990s, with some recently paying 100% of the cost of new stadiums. In addition the Detroit Red Wings are beloved throughout Michigan being one of the original 6 NHL teams and while I can't claim everyone is a hockey fan I would assume the majority are.

That said I'm not against a new stadium; I don't go to Detroit often but even I can tell the areas the stadiums are near are nicer than many others in the city, with many restaurants and service businesses in the area whereas other parts of Detroit are like driving into sadness. If they think they can develop another area like those it might just be worth it.

It would be nice to see more revenue sharing though, as Detroit could use all the help it can get. Apparently the stadium has not been named yet; perhaps the naming rights could be auctioned off and yearly proceeds donated to the city in recognition of the seemingly generous deal offered to the Red Wings organization and owner Mike Ilitch despite hard times for their loyal fans in the city.

[Descan]

What happened to the idea of consolidating Detroit citizens into a smaller region of the city to make providing services to people easier?

[GlyphGryph]

https://news.vice.com/article/legal-pot-in-the-us-is-crippling-mexican-cartels

Pot legalization in the US is apparently doing significant damage to the Cartels already. The DEA seems to think this is a bad thing.

Also, looks like a 17-year girl is going to be winning a seat in the state legislature in West Virginia. This is her platform:


(Also, the daughter of a current state legislator, so not THAT unexpected)

[Zangi]

Sounds like the DEA doesn't want to become irrelevant/underfunded/overhauled?  A war they have been fighting for years, with little overall result...

Really though, I've always been in the legalization will handicap the drug cartels camp.

[GlyphGryph]

Sounds like the DEA doesn't want to become irrelevant/underfunded/overhauled?

I've found that this is a good to tell whether an organization is "good". A good organization, especially one that deals with politics, law enforcement, charity or influence, should dream of the day they become irrelevant. That is the entire point of existing in the first place.

It's like starting a real military war, and then handing it to people who are very careful to avoid winning, because otherwise you'll stop getting paid. These are probably not the people one would want in charge of the war effort.

[Zangi]

Ah yea, you got a ton of jobs on the line.  There is also all the places they are spending money... +40 billion or something?  Lot of businesses relying on this drug war to go on for their livelyhood.

...  Its kinda like the military and its industry.

[Lord Shonus]

It's like starting a real military war, and then handing it to people who are very careful to avoid winning, because otherwise you'll stop getting paid. These are probably not the people one would want in charge of the war effort.

That's not that far off from what happened in Vietnam, apart from the profit motive. Top US officials had decided quite early in the conflict that outright military victory was to politically dangerous (in the international sense of upsetting the Cold War power game), and decided not to pursue it, using military ops primarily as an attempt to force negotiations.

The result, as we all know, was a clusterfuck of unimaginable proportions.

@Zangi

The "40+ Billion" figure for the War on Drugs is a bit deceptive. Much of the funding goes to organizations for which drug interdiction is only part of their mission statement, such as the Coast Guard (primarily a rescue and occasionally anti-piracy force), border patrols (drugs aren't the only things being smuggled in, after all), and outright military installations such as radar platforms and patrol aircraft. Much of this would remain needed even if the cartels collapsed.

[mainiac]

Top US officials had decided quite early in the conflict that outright military victory was to politically dangerous (in the international sense of upsetting the Cold War power game), and decided not to pursue it, using military ops primarily as an attempt to force negotiations.

Are you talking about the decision not to invade North Vietnam?

[Mr. Strange]

Top US officials had decided quite early in the conflict that outright military victory was to politically dangerous (in the international sense of upsetting the Cold War power game), and decided not to pursue it, using military ops primarily as an attempt to force negotiations.

Are you talking about the decision not to invade North Vietnam?

And instead vage war against common people in the south. Great strategy, can't imagine how it failed.

[Lord Shonus]

Top US officials had decided quite early in the conflict that outright military victory was to politically dangerous (in the international sense of upsetting the Cold War power game), and decided not to pursue it, using military ops primarily as an attempt to force negotiations.

Are you talking about the decision not to invade North Vietnam?

That's only part of it. In order to avoid antagonizing the USSR, any action that could be interpreted as anything but pure defense was forbidden. This meant that, aside from occasional "we're serious guys" stunts such as Linebacker, any strategic component of the war was off the table for most of the. No penetration raids to destroy supply depots, no blockade of ports, no behind the lines interdiction. For most of the conflict, pilots weren't even allowed to launch missiles at aircraft if they were north of the prewar border. Hell, even operations in South Vietnam concentrated purely on killing the enemy (which, incidentally, goes a long way toward explaining why no major military plans to fight the "body count war." It doesn't work,) instead of taking important territory such as the exit points for the Ho Chi Minh trail (which, if siezed by South Vietnamese or US troops would have rendered the bombings in Cambodia and Laos completely unnecessary).

[smjjames]

Yeah, the Vietnam war was riddled with politics. It might also be a case of not having an exit plan, which happened in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

I've also heard that pilots weren't allowed to bomb bridges that were clearly of stragetic importance. That's what happens when you let politics dictate your military strategy instead of generals.

We can all agree that the Vietnam War was a clusterfuck.

[mainiac]

Top US officials had decided quite early in the conflict that outright military victory was to politically dangerous (in the international sense of upsetting the Cold War power game), and decided not to pursue it, using military ops primarily as an attempt to force negotiations.

Are you talking about the decision not to invade North Vietnam?

That's only part of it. In order to avoid antagonizing the USSR, any action that could be interpreted as anything but pure defense was forbidden. This meant that, aside from occasional "we're serious guys" stunts such as Linebacker, any strategic component of the war was off the table for most of the. No penetration raids to destroy supply depots, no blockade of ports, no behind the lines interdiction. For most of the conflict, pilots weren't even allowed to launch missiles at aircraft if they were north of the prewar border. Hell, even operations in South Vietnam concentrated purely on killing the enemy (which, incidentally, goes a long way toward explaining why no major military plans to fight the "body count war." It doesn't work,) instead of taking important territory such as the exit points for the Ho Chi Minh trail (which, if siezed by South Vietnamese or US troops would have rendered the bombings in Cambodia and Laos completely unnecessary).

Tell me, with what troops would the US pacify south Vietnam if they're busy fighting the PLA forces stationed in north Vietnam?  Does the US settle for just seizing Chongqing in order to stop the flow of arms into Vietnam or does this require then occupying Beijing to prevent the flow of arms to the newly created insurgency in Chongqing?

The US proved itself perfectly willing to ignore "politics" with, for example, the bombing of Cambodia.  But they weren't going to launch an invasion that would create more problems then it would solve even assuming the Chinese forces dont enter into the equation.  The goal of a counter insurgency is to outlast, not exhaust yourself and create more insurgents.

[Lord Shonus]

You cannot fight an insurgency if you are also fighting a full-scale conventional war (which most modern historians seem to want to pretend did not exist) at the same time. The disparity of forces was such that a full-scale strategic assault on the North would, barring direct Soviet intervention, have had at least an 80% chance of wiping North Vietnam off the map entirely, particuarly since every bullet, bomb, or rocket in their arsenal was imported. After this point, the insurgency would, again barring direct Soviet intervention, have largely starved and died away, largely due to the fact that the widespread destruction of the South (along with the NVA's well-documented massacre squads) was the main reason there was an insurgency in the first place.

Politics weren't a factor in the bombing of Laos and Cambodia because the USSR didn't give a flying fuck what happened to those countries which were not already ruled by Soviet puppets. (Indeed, they welcomed any destruction that might strengthen local Communist parties, which is what wound up happening.)

[mainiac]

(which most modern historians seem to want to pretend did not exist)

(citation needed)

you know what makes it hard to fight an insurgency?  Attacking a vastly superior force while you do it.  You might want to actually look at the size of the NVA or the PLA deployment in Vietnam or the PLA total size at the time.  You would be less blasse about the insanity of attacking the north.

[MDFification]

(which most modern historians seem to want to pretend did not exist)

I think you're confusing the history channel with historians again.
Also America cannot into historical accuracy.