Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LynahFan
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    In other news, the entire basis of personal rights, privacy, property -- the entire Western Experiment -- is on the line. Without this, there is nothing. Have we really reached the point where people (left, right, center, everybody) are so jaded, ignorant or afraid that they just don't care anymore?
    Not to worry. I was recently reliably informed in a discussion regarding taxation that individuals actually don't have the right to private property since it's not in the Constitudtion, so we're all square on that aspect, anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    In other news, the entire basis of personal rights, privacy, property -- the entire Western Experiment -- is on the line. Without this, there is nothing. Have we really reached the point where people (left, right, center, everybody) are so jaded, ignorant or afraid that they just don't care anymore?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    I seem to remember some guy saying something about walking with a big stick or something...
    Military power is just like the Laffer curve -- you have to find the sweet spot. If you have too little you're screwed by others. If you have too much you screw yourself because the whole world considers you a threat and you are a threat because to the man with air superiority the solution to every problem is bombing.

    You would think that people who have an ideology that overgrown government becomes tyrannical by its very nature would be able to wrap its head around that, but the home schooled are apparently not too strong on logical consistency.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Craig P. View Post
    I find the low quantity of "both" answers to the second question to be a little surprising. Diplomacy will only go so far when the guy on the other side of the table doesn't respect your ability to stand up to him.
    I seem to remember some guy saying something about walking with a big stick or something...

    Leave a comment:


  • XYZ
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    These are the kind of poll questions which, the moment they are first asked, I wish we had 50 years of trending on.
    Agreed. Those are pretty generically worded, which makes me wonder if the result is merely standard relative to age demographic or actually indicative of larger generational differences that won't change as each generation ages.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig P.
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    I find the low quantity of "both" answers to the second question to be a little surprising. Diplomacy will only go so far when the guy on the other side of the table doesn't respect your ability to stand up to him.

    Leave a comment:


  • joecct
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    This is hopeful, but I wonder about a couple things.

    (1) Are these age splits usually the case?

    (2) Is this just a short term reaction to the disasters of the wars?

    These are the kind of poll questions which, the moment they are first asked, I wish we had 50 years of trending on.
    There is always the Curtis Lemay school of foreign relations:

    *****http://monkeypuzzlepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Atomic-Bomb.jpg******

    Leave a comment:


  • 5mn_Major
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    That survey is the crux of both foriegn relations and national security questions. The trend is good...but I bet it has always been 'good' (probably since the introduction of the league of nations).

    Perhaps, the more fundamental problem is that the 'establishment' is for the costly status quo.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    This is hopeful, but I wonder about a couple things.

    *****http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20162fd0d2268970d-pi******

    (1) Are these age splits usually the case?

    (2) Is this just a short term reaction to the disasters of the wars?

    These are the kind of poll questions which, the moment they are first asked, I wish we had 50 years of trending on.

    Leave a comment:


  • 5mn_Major
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by bronconick View Post
    Which is why we had to do all the heavy lifting and logistics in Libya in their front yard. Our withdrawal will require them to be able to at least project power in the Mediterranean, something they appear to be incapable of doing right now.
    If your point is...lets cut back and they can pick up the slack if they want: I'm all for it. But I don't expect they will and just as with the US, I have no problem the EU making decisions that are in their own best interest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by joecct View Post
    It still takes a while to spin up and deploy unless you're sitting right next to a railroad junction and are going to near where the railroads are going.

    Why not do what we do @ Diego Garcia and pre position a pot load of equipment somewhere (lease the space) and fly the troops in to man the stuff when needed? As much as a I like Pax Americana, it cannot be sustained in the current economy.
    Israel is our permanent leased beachhead in oil country. Unfortunately, it's probably more costly in both money and world opinion than maintaining a huge permanent base in Iraq would have been.

    Leave a comment:


  • joecct
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    It's a strategic base to have access to the middle east (and pretty much everywhere else east of the prime meridian). Rammstein holds more strategic value than probably everything but Pearl Harbor and Deigo Garcia.
    It still takes a while to spin up and deploy unless you're sitting right next to a railroad junction and are going to near where the railroads are going.

    Why not do what we do @ Diego Garcia and pre position a pot load of equipment somewhere (lease the space) and fly the troops in to man the stuff when needed? As much as a I like Pax Americana, it cannot be sustained in the current economy.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronconick
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    No they don't. They're big boys and they've discovered that huge permanent standing armies is an enormous waste of money.
    Which is why we had to do all the heavy lifting and logistics in Libya in their front yard. Our withdrawal will require them to be able to at least project power in the Mediterranean, something they appear to be incapable of doing right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • 5mn_Major
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    It's a strategic base to have access to the middle east (and pretty much everywhere else east of the prime meridian). Rammstein holds more strategic value than probably everything but Pearl Harbor and Deigo Garcia.
    Enter the big fallacy. The US does not need to have massive amounts of troops within a day of every potential hotspot...burdening the US taxpayers with a just in case scenario financed by weak dollars. The cold war is over.

    At worst, these bases are holdovers situated in heart of the EU which next to Kansas is arguably the most secure location in the world.

    Cut the deficit.

    Originally posted by bronconick View Post
    They need to turn some of their plowshares back into swords so we can do the opposite.
    No they don't. They're big boys and they've discovered that huge permanent standing armies is an enormous waste of money.

    The global economy and facebook is taking over...leaving few exceptions of rouge states (most of which we won't invade anyways) and terrorists, threats requiring tanks are receding. If something happens we/the west gears up. I've been to dozens of countries...and am quite comfortable that these days global public opinion will get it done.

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    The fiscal cons get that.
    I don't know if I've ever encountered one of these. I've met plenty of people who want to cut other peoples stuff.
    Last edited by 5mn_Major; 11-12-2011, 06:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronconick
    replied
    Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    It's a strategic base to have access to the middle east (and pretty much everywhere else east of the prime meridian). Rammstein holds more strategic value than probably everything but Pearl Harbor and Deigo Garcia.
    We can't negotiate the same rights without essentially being the enablers for the dismantling of the western European armies? Their now failing socialist states were built on our blood and gold, and we're out of gold now, too. They need to turn some of their plowshares back into swords so we can do the opposite.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X