Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

500 less

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: 500 less

    Franki,

    You are probably correct that we have the weaponry to wipe almost any country or "people" off the face of the map... BUT, who gets to decide who, exactly, that is? And, who are their allies? And, once that is done... who will be NEXT?

    As was previously pointed out, you cannot have laws (or a lack of laws) that allow our government (or any government) and thier agencies to brandish a power that may blanket any segment of our society. As human beings we have this terrible knack of letting power corrupt us... and of course, "ABSOLUTE POWER, CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY! (I think that was George Orwell who said that.)

    (Adolf Hitler quickly gained absolute power and look what it did to the world... we can never allow that to happen again.)

    While there are those among us who think that we American's are above all that, the sad fact is that we have a history that has been most violent and most unjust, especially against anything or anyone that is "alien" to our society as we see it. So having unbridled power to wipe out the criminal elements that are infecting us and our society, is probably never going to happen. And if it does, I fear that we will quickly find that our quest for a dream society, will be a nightmare for many of us... because we fail to comprehend that someone's "dream" might well be our "nightmare".

    Spiff,

    Did you mean eight "weeks", as stated or eight "years"?


    Xooma,

    There are many reason why the Russian's were so profoundly defeated in Afganistan. One of course is that we jumped into the fray, and heavily supplied the Taliban and other Afgan rebels. Super gunships and long columns of supply vehicles do not operate well in the face of shoulder launched rockets, especially those designed with U.S. weapons technology.

    The other problem of course it that this was NOT the Russian army of today...it was the last remnants of the USSR military, which suffered many shortages, including leadership and moral, well-trained and well-disciplined soldiery. Almost immediately, the Soviet army of occupation began to steal from the population that it was there to save. The puppet government that they had put in power was grossly corrupt and quite inept, providing almost nothing to the population, outside of Kabul.

    So as the occupation continued, many of the Soviet troops began to see shortages of food and equipment. Most came from backgrounds of poverty and neglect; and, even in best of times, they were not representative or benefactors of a well-groomed, educated, and stable society. In the face of Afganistan, there was ample opportunity to steal, rape, and pillage.

    Unfortunately, while our own troops are products of a richer and more genteel society.... there are too many (even "one", is too many) who are not clear in thier responsibilities. Things like Abu Graib (sp?) and the numerous accounts of rape and murder of unarmed civilians is the very thing that causes an army to be defeated. Of course, one cannot look at a situation from an "arm chair" and know with any certainy, that they would behave differently when stressed to such an extent. But we can all look at the tow that this takes on a soldier... being returned to battle, again and again and again.

    Finding answers to the deaths of American soldiers is difficult, if not impossible. But I do know that "honor" is a value that is misinterpreted too much. We live in a world of video games, life is quick, fast, and cheap. War is looked at as a game, a Saturday night movie of sorts. We look at ourselves an invisible power with technology beyond compreshension be the "other" worlds. Fact is, it is pretty much incomprehensible by most of us too.

    Having a leadership that declares "Bring It On" or "Shock and Awe" or "We'll bomb them back to the stone age".... scares the hell out of me. It is like we have learned nothing from our wars and the senseless deaths of both our own and our percieved enemies. Even the most underarmed idiot can kill you. Technology, intention, or all the best weaponry in the world cannot totally illiminate that possibility. Yet we conduct our political alliances and industrial/economical stategies without any concern as to the sideeffects or the backlash that may occur. We are all too often focused on what's is best, and what is profitable for us at this moment, with little to no regard as to what it may be doing to the rest of the world. Shamefully, we exercise our political and industrial might in such a brash way, simply because we know we have the military might that will let us get away with it.

    Unfortunately, history has shown us that such activities come back to bite us in the ***. And when that happens, we throw our sons and daughters and neighbors into the slaughter. So "Yes", we have a lot of American's being killed and that is very sad indeed, because not only don't we have an anwer for that... but we don't have a question as to the "why's" of that either.

    On our southern border we have a massive infux of illegals. Why is that? Perhaps we should look at economical crisis that is there... and who caused it and what, if anything are we doing to fix it? It's like that big oil leak we have in the Gulf.... we're all running around trying trying to come up with some way to sop up the mess... and to stop the flow. But what are we doing to make sure that it doesn't happen again? At the moment we're talking big, but as soon as this is over and the price at the pump goes up, you can well be assured that all the rules will be relaxed once again.

    On the same border thousands are dying in the so-called "drug wars". But who caused this? What are we doing to stop it? Are any of the drug-buying public being held accountable for such deeds? If you don't buy and use, then there is no drug trade taking place and if there is no drug trade, then there's no competition for it, and then there would be no murders. So, bottom line... our "recreation" is getting a lot of people killed!

    It's easy to say, "we need to put a stop to this or that". Problem of course is to comprehend the causes of these "effects" on our society and our world. Bombing them to oblivion doesn't appear to be much of an answer though.

    CWS

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 500 less

      It took us eight weeks to get boots on the ground in Afghanistan to pursue Al Qaeda.

      We dithered while the bad guys slipped away under the darkness of night.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 500 less

        Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
        The Times Square guy was an American. You want a different set of laws based on the crime?
        Yes, you commit a terrorist act against our country and immediately lose your citizenship and all rights! The punishment and treatment should, must fit the crime.


        Unfortunately leveling a mountain would also affect the rest of the world. Between the radioactive fallout and dust cloud released into the atmosphere I think we would just generate more terrorists.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a Hollywood ending to this War-On-Terror. But detonating a thermo nuclear weapon in that region would be very, very dangerous. Pakistan is so close to being run by radical fundamentalist Muslims that such an act could very well put them in control of their government and then you would see a nuclear exchange that would reshape the geopolitical landscape, not to mention the environment, for generations to come.

        So, taking out a mountain where a handful of bad guys are hiding would simply be foolish.
        Call me foolish, but I'd rather take out the mountain and put the fear of "God" into the pakastanis, than continue to lose more American lives.


        If we do have ultimate power and continue to play by the rules of the bad guys, we are fools. They are on a mission to destroy our way of life and we are taking the shoes off grandma at the airport. Time to get serious. Get that other fine Amereican who killed all those brave young Americans at Ft. Hood, and do something horriffic to him. Videotape it and play it where the terrorists can see it 24/7. Then drop some bombs. You either are in this to win it or be politically correct?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 500 less

          Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
          It took us eight weeks to get boots on the ground in Afghanistan to pursue Al Qaeda.

          We dithered while the bad guys slipped away under the darkness of night.
          You've left a few parts out of the story. Afghanistan had been in a civil war for over a decade. The CIA was in Country and knew the whereabouts of bin Laden but Clinton did not want to authorize his capture or kill as he worried it would further destabilize the Country. As the Taliban gain power in the Country they allowed Al-Qaeda to open terrorists camps.

          The Bush administration had a plan ready to get bin Laden and throw the Taliban out if they did not help with bin Laden. Two days later 9/11 happened. At that point the US started to put together the Coalition to go into Afghanistan and gave the Taliban a timeline. On October 7, 2001 military action began. To me it seems like 3 1/2 weeks was a pretty quick response after what we had just been through.

          As for 500 being a good number, one is a good number as far as I am concerned. In 2008 the Taliban finally cut all ties with Al-Qaeda which started their down fall. Soon the tribal leaders found it was against their better interests to assist Al-Qaeda so they are now almost without any support. The CIA estimated there were less than 100 Al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan in 2008 so I am guessing the 500 number might include some Taliban as well. So the question now is do we take out all of the Taliban once Al-Qaeda is removed?

          Mark
          "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

          I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 500 less

            Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
            Call me foolish, but I'd rather take out the mountain and put the fear of "God" into the pakastanis, than continue to lose more American lives.


            If we do have ultimate power and continue to play by the rules of the bad guys, we are fools. They are on a mission to destroy our way of life and we are taking the shoes off grandma at the airport. Time to get serious. Get that other fine Amereican who killed all those brave young Americans at Ft. Hood, and do something horriffic to him. Videotape it and play it where the terrorists can see it 24/7. Then drop some bombs. You either are in this to win it or be politically correct?
            Winning to me is maintaining our way of life. I do not find it acceptable to sacrifice our values to fight against any force. In America we value freedom, we believe even the worst of society deserve a fair trial. We object to cruel and unusual punishment. Fear and oppression should not be our way of governing or solving our problems.

            Our way of life and government is better then theirs and should not be sacrificed. They are the ones that believe it is acceptable to kill innocents. They believe it is acceptable then torture people. They believe it is acceptable to 'put the fear of god' into people. If we adopt their beliefs in fighting them we are not winning we are simply joining them.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 500 less

              Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
              Winning to me is maintaining our way of life. I do not find it acceptable to sacrifice our values to fight against any force. In America we value freedom, we believe even the worst of society deserve a fair trial. We object to cruel and unusual punishment. Fear and oppression should not be our way of governing or solving our problems.

              Our way of life and government is better then theirs and should not be sacrificed. They are the ones that believe it is acceptable to kill innocents. They believe it is acceptable then torture people. They believe it is acceptable to 'put the fear of god' into people. If we adopt their beliefs in fighting them we are not winning we are simply joining them.
              I tend to agree to a point. I believe we should keep all civilian deaths to a bare minimum. Many times it is the government and not the people we should go after. However, many times our casualties are much higher as we try to weed out the differences.

              Mark
              "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

              I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 500 less

                Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                Call me foolish, but I'd rather take out the mountain and put the fear of "God" into the pakastanis, than continue to lose more American lives.
                Fear? That's your tool?

                As for torture, that is the way of the lazy, incompetent and pseudo tough.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 500 less

                  Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                  Fear? That's your tool?

                  As for torture, that is the way of the lazy, incompetent and pseudo tough.
                  I didn't bring up torture, in my opinion it's a waste of time. I think if there's more than one to be questioned, simply execute the first one in front of the other and let him decide to either talk or go next!

                  Yes, to the first question. Fear by way of example that will cause intimidation. You confuse the brutality and horror of war and survival with political correctness. Our justice sytem and "way of life" do not apply to a brutal enemy. I say play so unspeakably beyond their rules that they "fear" engagement.

                  During WWll the nazis gased millions of Jews, the japanese brutally killed millions. What did we do to end the war that was supposedly already over? The atom bomb! Overkill, or deterent?

                  What did the vietcong do to win the hearts of villagers? Wars are not won through fair play and decency. War is brutal and horrid, it is primal fear and the only time democracy and rights come into the picture is when the dust settles and either we win, or the enemy does and all is lost.

                  What prevents criminals from singling you out as prey, or invading your home? You can bluff strength and power or if pushed make an example of someone who threatens you so others can see the result of such behavior.

                  Our response to iran's threats has been weak and invites bad behavior. I think israel will only take the threats so long and if smart, they will open a can of whoop *** on iran and neutralize the threat.

                  What is your tool, turning the other cheek? Fighting by your enemy's rules? Someone pulls a knife on you and you have a gun, do you not use the gun to play fair? Seriously now!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 500 less

                    Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                    I didn't bring up torture, in my opinion it's a waste of time. I think if there's more than one to be questioned, simply execute the first one in front of the other and let him decide to either talk or go next!
                    Sorry, I must have misunderstood this comment:

                    "Get that other fine Amereican who killed all those brave young Americans at Ft. Hood, and do something horriffic to him. Videotape it and play it where the terrorists can see it 24/7."

                    Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                    Yes, to the first question. Fear by way of example that will cause intimidation. You confuse the brutality and horror of war and survival with political correctness. Our justice sytem and "way of life" do not apply to a brutal enemy. I say play so unspeakably beyond their rules that they "fear" engagement.
                    I am not confusing what I understand about the horror and brutality of war with being PC. Not having fought in a war I can not speak the horrors first hand. You want to get medieval on the bad guys on the battle field, fine. I don't have a problem with that. Just don't drag the civilians into it.

                    I still believe our legal system is the best in the world. No need to reinvent the wheel.


                    Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                    During WWll the nazis gased millions of Jews, the japanese brutally killed millions. What did we do to end the war that was supposedly already over? The atom bomb! Overkill, or deterent?
                    Using the atom bomb was a lot like outsourcing our jobs and moving manufacturing to nations with cheaper workforces. The numbers added up. It was expedient, saved time, treasury and American lives. But it ushered in the cold war and a nuclear arms race by radical nations and groups.

                    What deterrent have they had since? For over close to forty years it just meant mutually assured destruction. The present state of the nuclear world that was ushered in by those bombs is every bit as precarious as the cold war. And who knows what shape the threat will take in future generations.


                    Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                    What prevents criminals from singling you out as prey, or invading your home? You can bluff strength and power or if pushed make an example of someone who threatens you so others can see the result of such behavior.
                    Life isn't fair. Nothing prevent a criminal from making sure I have a bad day. Nothing prevents a random act of nature from destroying everything I have worked an entire life to build.

                    Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                    Our response to iran's threats has been weak and invites bad behavior. I think israel will only take the threats so long and if smart, they will open a can of whoop *** on iran and neutralize the threat.
                    If you want to turn Iran against us, then by all means pop some popcorn, get some SPF 10,000 sunscreen and welders goggles and watch Armageddon. Our posture towards Iran is as it should be. Open and willing to talk.

                    We are not the only bully on the block. Iran has a couple of bullies on their side, namely Russia and China. We take Iran personally. Russia and China have business relations with Iran that they do not want to see suffer because American doesn't like Iran.

                    Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                    What is your tool, turning the other cheek? Fighting by your enemy's rules? Someone pulls a knife on you and you have a gun, do you not use the gun to play fair? Seriously now!
                    Franki, sometimes all you can do is turn the other cheek. And now that we are fighting by our enemies rules in Afghanistan we are winning. And you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

                    The disastrous results of cowboy diplomacy are as obvious as the results of nuanced and pragmatic diplomacy are sublime. If we want to get the bad guys, we need to enlist the aid of foreign leaders. And if the citizens of those foreign nations respect and admire our leader, their leader is better able to provide the kind of support that secures our interests.

                    Would you rather our president have shoes thrown at him or have the masses lining to streets to cheer him? Which one do you think has a better opportunity to reach across the ocean and ask for and receive co-operation?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 500 less

                      {Quote; Spiff} So far the combination of statesmanship, intelligence and military activities have resulted in a continued erosion of their power and influence.

                      Safer? You have to either be joking or naive.

                      How many attacks or failed attempts on American soil since your hero took office? Go on count them.

                      How many when Bush was in office. The terrorists have zero respect for this administration and their supposed "statesmanship" They see Obama as weak and ineffective and the attacks and attempted attacks will continue. They have our homeland security, the FBI, CIA and local police departments running around like chickens with their heads cut off. There was an 8 hour standoff in Portsmouth NH because some innocent foreigner that couldn't speak english was too confused to get off the bus. 500 is a grain of sand on the beach. We are now fighting the known enemy and the unknown enemy and they have brought the fight to us. And all because of years of failed "statesmanship" starting with Jimmy Carter. You can not reason or deal with extremist fundamentalists.
                      Last edited by NHMaster3015; 05-08-2010, 11:03 AM.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 500 less

                        Originally posted by NHMaster3015 View Post
                        {Quote; Spiff} So far the combination of statesmanship, intelligence and military activities have resulted in a continued erosion of their power and influence.

                        Safer? You have to either be joking or naive.

                        How many attacks or failed attempts on American soil since your hero took office? Go on count them.

                        How many when Bush was in office. The terrorists have zero respect for this administration and their supposed "statesmanship" They see Obama as weak and ineffective and the attacks and attempted attacks will continue. They have our homeland security, the FBI, CIA and local police departments running around like chickens with their heads cut off. There was an 8 hour standoff in Portsmouth NH because some innocent foreigner that couldn't speak english was too confused to get off the bus. 500 is a grain of sand on the beach. We are now fighting the known enemy and the unknown enemy and they have brought the fight to us. And all because of years of failed "statesmanship" starting with Jimmy Carter. You can not reason or deal with extremist fundamentalists.
                        "AP - Pakistan successfully test-fired two ballistic missiles Saturday capable of carrying nuclear warheads, the military said, as the Islamic nation's leader urged the world to recognize it as a legitimate nuclear power."

                        If it's going to come to a nuclear war in the future, why allow more of these nut jobs to get the capability? Take them out now and then do all the talking and statesmanship you want with the survivors. Our consumer dollars helped communist china get so strong, what are we waiting for to take them out as well? We would also wipe out all our debts, it's like getting a second chance at good credit.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 500 less

                          Originally posted by NHMaster3015 View Post
                          How many attacks or failed attempts on American soil since your hero took office? Go on count them.
                          5, all of which the the main perpetrators have been brought to justice
                          How many when Bush was in office.
                          over 20, depending on who you ask more. 20 is the number the Bush administration in press releases themselves called international terrorist attacks. In 2 widely known known attacks, the main perpetrators where never brought to justice for their crimes. 9/11 and The anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001.

                          This argument Bush had no terrorist attacks under him after 9/11 is wrong. No matter how many mainstream Republicans are willing to lie about it. History is what it is.

                          The fact of the matter is people feel 'safer' under a leader they agree with. Republicans most likely felt safer under Bush, while Democrats are going to feel safer under Obama.

                          Both presidents have demonstrated national security is a top priority for them. Neither has intentionally weakened America. They have different ways of trying to keep us safe.

                          If you want to argue which president has done a better job of that, feel free to set up terms in which 'safer' will be determined. You'll have to be creative in order to find terms that can demonstrate Obama makes us less safe. It would be within the Republicans interest to shut their mouths and hope something terrible happens in order to win that fight.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: 500 less

                            Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
                            5, all of which the the main perpetrators have been brought to justice

                            over 20, depending on who you ask more. 20 is the number the Bush administration in press releases themselves called international terrorist attacks. In 2 widely known known attacks, the main perpetrators where never brought to justice for their crimes. 9/11 and The anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001.

                            This argument Bush had no terrorist attacks under him after 9/11 is wrong. No matter how many mainstream Republicans are willing to lie about it. History is what it is.

                            The fact of the matter is people feel 'safer' under a leader they agree with. Republicans most likely felt safer under Bush, while Democrats are going to feel safer under Obama.

                            Both presidents have demonstrated national security is a top priority for them. Neither has intentionally weakened America. They have different ways of trying to keep us safe.

                            If you want to argue which president has done a better job of that, feel free to set up terms in which 'safer' will be determined. You'll have to be creative in order to find terms that can demonstrate Obama makes us less safe. It would be within the Republicans interest to shut their mouths and hope something terrible happens in order to win that fight.
                            I would actually like to see some documentation on the 20-attacks. I know there have been a bunch of planned attacks which were thwarted but that is different than attacks carried out.

                            As for 9/11, the discussion is usually the attacks after 9/11. On 9/10 we lived in a totally different world. I am also curious why you say they never caught the perpetrator in the anthrax case? Have they now released Bruce Ivins for some reason?

                            Mark
                            "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

                            I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 500 less

                              "The fact of the matter is people feel 'safer' under a leader they agree with. Republicans most likely felt safer under Bush, while Democrats are going to feel safer under Obama.

                              Both presidents have demonstrated national security is a top priority for them. Neither has intentionally weakened America. They have different ways of trying to keep us safe."

                              I think both Presidents failed miserably in securing our country and especially our borders! Imagine leaving your front door wide open day and night, and having the nerve to say you have kept your family safe at home?
                              The fact is a lot of things played into our not having a repeat of 9/11, lack of effort on the part of terrorists and luck on our side. We can't keep counting on luck and with unsecured borders, anyone who praises the work of our Presidents in keeping us safe is delusional in my opinion.

                              We are at risk both by violent attack and by economic failure. Both Presidents run our government at a deficit funded in part by a communist government. How can anyone say this is the behavior of a good leader? Can you say it without laughing or crying?

                              Show me a President who does not care about losing the next election, who will secure our borders and operate our government without going further into debt. A President who can smile at the global leaders, but put into motion a plan to have private industry reinvest in America, to employ Americans and rebuild our country.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 500 less

                                Thanks Mark for getting that in and saving me the trouble
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X