shanbaum said:
Sheesh, now you're channeling Gerald Ford.
Did you all see that !!!!
shanbaum said:
Sheesh, now you're channeling Gerald Ford.
Did you all see that !!!!
Great Robert, answer my question with another question that I already answered.Then what can? I keep asking the question, what army could have stopped 9/11, or 3/11, and no-one answers. How do you "root them out where they live" with an army? How do you find out where they live with an army? You need something else, something more like an army of spies and policemen, if not exactly that.
So, I'll repeat. Police and spies are important to find out where they live. Now, please answer MY question, how do you root them out in a nation that doesn't play nice (since that's where they tend to live) with police and spies?
-KB
You take that army... Go house to house, use GPS and special ops equipment to look thrrough walls. You tap every phone (which NSA has done). You freeze every bank account, and if the swiss or cayman islands don't concur you threaten them as well for harboring the enemy.
You don't stop there. You cut the guts out of the fugatives suspected of terror activity on Al-Jazera, on a nightly basis, to compliment our dead soldiers portrayed by the seditious left on a nightly basis.
For every one terror victim kill 10,000 in the country harboring the terrorists.
Anywhere you couldn't search carpet bomb.
Problem solved. (And I think the number of dead would be quite few, considering they would all give up shortly).:drop:
Reward complying contries with lucrative trade agreements. For our friends the world, our enemies get Hell. Thats how you solve the problem with minimal lives lost.
Read Mona Charens book Useful Idiots . She can explain it much better than I can Robert. Also read about all the events leading up to the fall of the USSR including the talks between US administrations and the USSR. We forced them into a race they could neither win nor afford and "containment" wasn't what did it. Saying that "containment" was what did it is pretty arrogant on our part since we weren't containing anything. We used their arrogance against them.
As I said "containment" is a pretty word for "doing nothing" other than giving lip service.
"What "next strategic step?" What in the world are you talking about?"
Find it yourself. I'm tired of giving you all the answers. I had to do the research now you try ;)
"Sheesh, now you're channeling Gerald Ford."
So? Perhaps you're channeling Bozo The Clown? :D
"Containment a failure? Oh, right, I forgot about us losing Western Europe."
Yes, containment was, is and always will be a total failure.
Western Europe? Yeah, containment really helped in keeping the proliferation of communism down in Western Europe. And the fact that we were funding and still are funding most of those European countries had nothing to do with it? And those European countries saw how great communism was and welcomed it with open arms? (remember when the Eastern block fell because Communism failed?) And our armed forces in those European countries had nothing to do with keeping the peace? And Socialism rendering the USSR bankrupt had nothing to do with it's demise? Much of what happened with the USSR had nothing to do with "containment." It had everything to do with opportunity.
Well folks I'm gonna go outside and start yelling "GIRAFFES BE GONE!!!!" and when they find no Giraffes here in West Texas I can claim it worked just like "containment" did :D
Darris C.
PS. Hey Robert, when your done reading Clarkes book could I borrow it? I won't pay to read it but I would like to read it if you would be so kind ;)
Last edited by Darris Chambless; 04-05-2004 at 05:04 PM.
I'll swap for one of your Anne Coulter books (which I likewise wouldn't pay for). Or maybe Useful Idiots, since you keep mentioning it.Darris Chambless said:
PS. Hey Robert, when your done reading Clarkes book could I borrow it? I won't pay to read it but I would like to read it if you would be so kind
But my wife wants to read Against All Enemies first.
Not a problem Robert.
Let me know which one you would like to read first and I'll send it your way.
Take care,
Darris C.
Somebody not in Congress actually read Clarke's little bit of fiction?
It's number one on NYT list. (The non-fiction list!) How do you know it's inaccurate if you've not read it?
I see that the Bushophiles are circling the wagons. The 9/11 commission (headed by a republican) has stated that so far, they think their report will say 9/11 was avoidable. Therefore, the obvious conclusion of the Bushies is these guys are liars, hacks, nose-pickers, whatever. Like Clarke. Like O'Neill. Like Blix. Well you get the idea.
I propose to let Blix speak for himself.
For some reason the link isn't working
Go to drudgereport.com
click on "Blix:Iraq was better off with Saddam"
I'm sure we will come to different conclutions. But something about the lack of mass graves trumps it for me.
Last edited by mrba; 04-06-2004 at 01:32 PM.
I'll make no judgement on him until that time. I like information for or against whomever.
"How do you know it's inaccurate if you've not read it?"
I'm in agreement with chm there Chip. Read it and then make a judgement otherwise you are, in fact, closed minded as they like to tell everyone we are.
chm,
"I see that the Bushophiles are circling the wagons."
Have the Demophiles ever uncircled theirs? They tend to circle at the first sign of the wind changing direction. ;)
"The 9/11 commission (headed by a republican) has stated that so far, they think their report will say 9/11 was avoidable."
Here's a shocker for ya, I too believe that 9/11 was avoidable (although not pinpointable). Isn't that amazing? Had we (as a country) not coward to the wants of the liberal ideologs it would have never gotten this far. That is a lesson in common sense. When the first WTC bombing happened we should have been all over them like "white on rice."
When someone comes to your house, walks in without being invited and points a gun at you, you should:
A) Have them take a seat and bring them cookies and tea.
B) Blame yourself for having created an evironment where people like this poor man are forced to do unspeakable things.
C) Tell him if he leaves right now you won't tell anybody and curl up in the fetal position and wait to be shot.
D) Fight like H*LL because you know nothing good will come from this either way.
E) (The ever popular arguement) Blame the gun company because without guns this would never be happening. :)
I personally would choose D but then I have a backbone and can stand up for myself as well as think on my feet. Not to mention I would blame the guy that walked into my house uninvited for the problem and hold him responsible and use whatever means or tools available to "subdue" (euphamism for make sure he's not breathing) the invader.
"Therefore, the obvious conclusion of the Bushies is these guys are liars, hacks, nose-pickers, whatever."
Here is another shocker for you. I believe that everyone of the people you mentioned gave accurate information based on their findings. I believe they found or didn't find what they espouse. BUT (and here's the "but") They may not have had or positively didn't have access to ALL of the information to come to the conclusions they did (Kind of like what you said to Chip about not reading the book but judging it anyway.) I've read some of the transcripts from Clarke and seen some of the 9/11 commision footage interviewing Clarke and can and will say that he does contradict his own statements on more than one occasion and based on backgrounds of some of the people he has discussed I honestly don't see where he could have come up with his assessments of the situations regarding these people, but I will read his book when Roberts lovely wife is finished with it.
"I'm sure we will come to different conclutions. But something about the lack of mass graves trumps it for me."
mrba,
I can't get the link to work. Just incase others want to read it. I'll find another way into it though.
I got in and read the article and I can't find a reference to a lack of mass graves. Where did you read that?
Talk to you folks later.
Darris C.
Last edited by Darris Chambless; 04-06-2004 at 01:25 PM.
Sorry Darris,
I can't make the link work so I wrote out how I got there in the first place in my previous post...
The mass graves thing is quite common knowledge. I watched a documentary last night showing mothers digging their dead childern out of the sand shortly after the fall of Saddam. He was executing up until the last week!
I was making a point albiet Shanbaum would point out correctly I was not being clear. Blix says Iraq is better with Saddam. I say the lack of new mass graves speaks for itself.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sprj.irq.main/
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000479.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2971464.stm
Notice in the CNN article the looting is more important than the mass grave in the headline.
Last edited by mrba; 04-06-2004 at 01:43 PM.
Thanks mrba,
I was a little confused by the way you presented your statement. It sounded almost as if you had read something saying the mass grave sites didn't exist and that trumped it for you to not believe any of it. I was about to ask about all the live feeds from the beginning of all the Iraqi's at these mass grave sites trying to identify potential family member remains as they were being exumed by US forces. Thanks for clarifying.
I have to say that when you said carpet bomb complete areas and innocents would just have to be assessed as collateral damage, while I agree in theory I don't agree in practical application. What I would propose is to discard the anti-assine provision put into place by, I believe, Ford. That way we could pinpoint targets. And I would re-enlist Zombie Squads dropping them into areas to infiltrate and neutralize as needed.
Spies would be indespensible so Robert has a point there, but policemen? Policemen enforce the law and when utilizing spies one needs a first strike capability when a target is identified not someone to write a ticket or haul you into court, they must be neutralized without civilian casualty whenever possible and with the right combination of people would be highly effective. When positive ID is made on a terrorist they should be liquidated ASAP but quietly. Those that can be taken alive for the sake of information, do so and then liquidate them when you have what you need.
Terror works for terrorists so I wonder if it wouldn't work just as well against terrorists. If you are caught you will give up your information and then die but you'll never see or hear us coming for you. Just a thought.
Take care,
Darris C.
KGB to me. How many Russians disappeared without anyone noticing they were missing. Perhaps MOSSAD should teach our CIA some of their tecniques.
Bob V.
Did either of you read past the first sentance? Dr. Blix stated that the removal of Saddam and his regime was positive, but that the WAR in Iraq had created more negatives than positives in his estimation. I can agree with that statement. I doubt that you will find many who would not agree that the toppling of that regime was a positive step, however the fact that the current administration is not willing to commit enough troops to finish the job properly is a huge negative. Until that happens, our service men and women and those of the other nations involved will continue to be picked off like so many "fish in a barrel". Bush '41 made the same tactical error. While I do not advocate war or assasination or terror as a solution for every crisis, if a decision is made then it should be made with a committment to complete the mission without regard to political timetables and agendas.
I can understand chm's frustration with mrba. I am willing to bet that those of you who are ranting the loudest have never had to say goodbye to someone on a pier or at an airport as they left on a tour of duty knowing that someone may or may not come home.
Judy Canty said: [/i][/b]
"Did either of you read past the first sentance? Dr. Blix stated that the removal of Saddam and his regime was positive, but that the WAR in Iraq had created more negatives than positives in his estimation. I can agree with that statement. I doubt that you will find many who would not agree that the toppling of that regime was a positive step, however the fact that the current administration is not willing to commit enough troops to finish the job properly is a huge negative."
1. Schools, Hospitals, equal rights for women, end to torture chambers, end to mass graves, trump any negatives you can dream of.
2. Most americans are not aware of the fact thet occupation takes many years as in Germany and Japan. Sudden pacification of iraq is an ignorant idea. We are in for the long haul just as the pres said.
"if a decision is made then it should be made with a committment to complete the mission without regard to political timetables and agendas."
I agree, the lib press does not.
"I can understand chm's frustration with mrba. I am willing to bet that those of you who are ranting the loudest have never had to say goodbye to someone on a pier or at an airport as they left on a tour of duty knowing that someone may or may not come home."
What a silly generalization. Deserves no response.
Darris Chambless said:
Thanks mrba,
I have to say that when you said carpet bomb complete areas and innocents would just have to be assessed as collateral damage, while I agree in theory I don't agree in practical application. What I would propose is to discard the anti-assine provision put into place by, I believe, Ford. That way we could pinpoint targets. And I would re-enlist Zombie Squads dropping them into areas to infiltrate and neutralize as needed.
Spies would be indespensible so Robert has a point there, but policemen? Policemen enforce the law and when utilizing spies one needs a first strike capability when a target is identified not someone to write a ticket or haul you into court, they must be neutralized without civilian casualty whenever possible and with the right combination of people would be highly effective. When positive ID is made on a terrorist they should be liquidated ASAP but quietly. Those that can be taken alive for the sake of information, do so and then liquidate them when you have what you need.
Terror works for terrorists so I wonder if it wouldn't work just as well against terrorists. If you are caught you will give up your information and then die but you'll never see or hear us coming for you. Just a thought.
Take care,
Darris C.
I think one thing my extreme rants have lead to is a realization of a few things.
1. As with Japan, a supreme example, warfare of any kind tends to start with a bang, then escalate to a very big bang. No one has acknowleged my point that Hiroshima and Nagaski were calculated and intentional mass attacks on civilians, and that that was an ok thing at the time!
2. It was believed at the time that imperialists were maniacs, on par with islamic fundamentalists if you ask me.
My extreame point of carpet bombing had to do with these two indisputable facts. It had nothing to do with me being a homicidal maniac as our friend Shanbaum asserts. Of course before he came to that conclution, he had to critisize my non existant communication skills, such brilliant commentary to say the least.:D
My conclution of all out war comes from the idea of instead of watching lives go down the drain followed by a clataclismic slaughter, lets have a smaller "shock slaughter". It would spare a great many lives in my estimate.
Zero tolerance means zero tolerance.
I must say I like your idea of assasination. My only issue with it is we have never been good at it. Castro comes to mind...
Well there it is, straight from the evil one:hammer:
I must admit that when I heard the news and saw some of the pictures that came out of Falluja, my first thought was "level the town, no warning, whomever dies, dies (Iraqi)".
And you know what, I still feel the same way. How else are you going to stop the roadside bombings, the rpg attacks? "Please don't shoot, we're the Americans who are here to help you."
B******t. You have to fight fire with fire. The japanese were shooting at us from trees, the viet cong were using tunnels, the Iraqis are using mule carts.
Being a pacifist is fine, but even a pacifist should realize when to bow out and let the games begin.
Remember Ghandi? A pacifist. Assassinated. What good did it do HIM?
Bob V.
It got him an independent India with an historically small amount of bloodshed.BobV said:
Remember Ghandi? A pacifist. Assassinated. What good did it do HIM?
Bob V.
Yes Judy,
I read it from tip to toe did I say something that made you think otherwise?
"I can understand chm's frustration with mrba."
I can't. Truth is truth.
"I am willing to bet that those of you who are ranting the loudest have never had to say goodbye to someone on a pier or at an airport as they left on a tour of duty knowing that someone may or may not come home."
While I agree with mrba that this is a silly generalization I do have to say that No, I've not had to do that. What I have had to do is sit with a dear friend of mine and reassure him he was loved and that God would take care of him while I held his hand and waited for him to die (he was on Hospice) He was a dear friend of mine for many years and my best friends father. So do I get browny points for that Judy? I would certainly hope not and I would never ask for them because that is selfish, especially when it's not me personally having to face these uncertainties or dangers.
Just my rational thoughts,
Darris C.
BobV said:
I must admit that when I heard the news and saw some of the pictures that came out of Falluja, my first thought was "level the town, no warning, whomever dies, dies (Iraqi)".
And you know what, I still feel the same way. How else are you going to stop the roadside bombings, the rpg attacks? "Please don't shoot, we're the Americans who are here to help you."
B******t. You have to fight fire with fire. The japanese were shooting at us from trees, the viet cong were using tunnels, the Iraqis are using mule carts.
So, you really truly, believe that levelling Fallujah will solve the problem? It will put an end to the roadside bombings, and rpg attacks?
And he wasn't able to enjoy that freedom. Wonderful.
Bob V.
BobV said:
And he wasn't able to enjoy that freedom. Wonderful.
Bob V.
Great. Gandhi's legacy should be disregarded because he got shot. Better to have had a violent war of Indian independence, and a live Gandhi.
He's no doubt spinning in his grave...
shanbaum said:
So, you really truly, believe that levelling Fallujah will solve the problem? It will put an end to the roadside bombings, and rpg attacks?
YES, with the caveat that fallujah truly be leveled. And I have no problem with an evacuation first...
On the other hand, its almost too late now. Should have been done knee jerk reaction style...
Loudspeakers: "The punishment for hurting the hair on one american soldier's head is death. You have 2 hours to leave this city. We reccomend you do"
mrba, I expected that response from you, and you already know what I think about it.
Would you acknowledge that at least two results are possible: one, it would cow the remaining Iraqis, and other Muslims, into submission, or two, it would incite them to even greater anger, hatred, and violence?
You didn't expect the evacuation part!
and yes I acknowledge those two responses on the part of Iraqi's may occur... Athough I think I know where you are going with this, I will point out that Iraqi's are in no mood to fight an insugency on a large scale... Now that they enjoy furnature and such.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks