Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

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

  • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

    Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
    Unfortunately you have a habit of coming into threads and supporting folks, at least tacitly, when they are trying to bait me.
    Well, that is not my intention. As I've mentioned many times, I would much rather debate issues with you, since you are sane and sincerely trying (albeit mistaken ) , than with most of the folks on your side, who are either crazy or just cravenly spouting whatever WSJ said that morning.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

    Comment


    • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

      Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
      Boots on the ground make no sense in a place like Iraq where basically everyone hates us and always likely will regardless of what we do.
      Thank you. If I had a quote in my sig this would be it. I would expand this, however, to the entire Middle East from Egypt to Iran and from Turkey to Yemen.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

        Originally posted by Kepler View Post
        Thank you. If I had a quote in my sig this would be it. I would expand this, however, to the entire Middle East from Egypt to Iran and from Turkey to Yemen.
        I generally agree.

        Which puts forth an interesting question of what, if any circumstances are there when boots on the ground (recognizing that boots on the ground can range from a quick strike to a long term commitment of many thousands) are warranted. I think there is value in not formally saying we'll never do it so there is at least a small threat in in the back of bad guys' minds that it could happen and at least occasionally doing a quick strike kind of thing to take out a terrorist leader, rescue a hostage or certain other limited circumstances. It's the big occupy a country that hates us stuff that really gets messy and costly.
        Originally posted by Priceless
        Good to see you're so reasonable.
        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
        Very well, said.
        Originally posted by Rover
        A fair assessment Bob.

        Comment


        • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

          Originally posted by burd View Post
          I think we Americans also tend to forget how complicated internal politics can be for leaders of countries with many conflicting tribal interests. They often represent one thing to the outside world to serve their domestic political needs while also working with western governments such as ours covertly or through third parties and back-door channels. Turkey, for instance, is in a sensitive position with regard to ISIS' attack on Kobani. The Turks generally see Syrians as terrorists and are willing to fight ISIS, but they have long-standing conflicts with some, but not all, Kurdish groups. The Kurdish army defending Kobani (YPG, I think) is one that Turkey has been butting heads with, and many think that is why ISIS has chosen to invade this city, which is not that strategically important. Somepeoplealsoforgetthatthegopherssuck.
          Yes, it's certainly true that leaders in these countries are often balancing major conflicting interests that often do not get along well and that plays into how they go about things. The entire region is a massive hodgepodge of religious, ethnic, etc. groups that more often than not have long and disagreeable histories with one another. And the historical way of solving things is force.

          I posted an article awhile back that the Turkish-Kurdish relationship seems to be changing (remember Kepler?) in a positive way with some real opportunities for better relations with the Kurds, though that's still got a ways to go and could derail.
          Originally posted by Priceless
          Good to see you're so reasonable.
          Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
          Very well, said.
          Originally posted by Rover
          A fair assessment Bob.

          Comment


          • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

            Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
            I generally agree.

            Which puts forth an interesting question of what, if any circumstances are there when boots on the ground (recognizing that boots on the ground can range from a quick strike to a long term commitment of many thousands) are warranted. I think there is value in not formally saying we'll never do it so there is at least a small threat in in the back of bad guys' minds that it could happen and at least occasionally doing a quick strike kind of thing to take out a terrorist leader, rescue a hostage or certain other limited circumstances. It's the big occupy a country that hates us stuff that really gets messy and costly.
            I think Afghanistan was a good example of when full scale boots on the ground can be warranted.

            1) Adequate provocation (9/11)
            2) Strong likelihood of future danger (more 9/11s)
            3) Workable military goal (behead AQ)
            4) Defensible political goal (remove the Taliban, who hosted AQ)

            Some of the things mentioned in your post -- take out a terrorist leader, rescue a hostage -- can be accomplished with special ops.

            The military is a savings account. It's vital to have it for emergencies, but just because you do doesn't mean you are now free to spend money everywhere. Too many people see the military as a checking account -- want something? No problem, dip into savings.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

              Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
              I posted an article awhile back that the Turkish-Kurdish relationship seems to be changing (remember Kepler?) in a positive way with some real opportunities for better relations with the Kurds, though that's still got a ways to go and could derail.
              I do remember this. I'm hopeful but it struck me as "you are still my enemy but we've got a bigger problem now."

              OTOH, the Brits and French finally made peace because they were scared of the Germans, and then the French and the Germans made peace because they were scared of the Russians. Maybe someday we'll bring about world peace because everybody else will be scared of us.
              Last edited by Kepler; 10-03-2014, 01:57 PM.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                I think Afghanistan was a good example of when full scale boots on the ground can be warranted.

                1) Adequate provocation (9/11)
                2) Strong likelihood of future danger (more 9/11s)
                3) Workable military goal (behead AQ)
                4) Defensible political goal (remove the Taliban, who hosted AQ)

                Some of the things mentioned in your post -- take out a terrorist leader, rescue a hostage -- can be accomplished with special ops.

                The military is a savings account. It's vital to have it for emergencies, but just because you do doesn't mean you are now free to spend money everywhere. Too many people see the military as a checking account -- want something? No problem, dip into savings.
                Afghanistan is a tough one, as we had good reason to go in, but the place has a lot of issues, as the last dozen years have demonstrated, with turning the place into a country where terrorists won't find a haven again. From terrain, to Mulsim fundamentalism, to surrounding nations and their interests, to varying ethnic/regional differences, to it's history, making something of Afghanistan, for us or the natives or anyone is a tall order. I'm not sure it can be done. Part of me thinks we just have a standing threat that we blast anyone who turns Afghanistan into a terrorist haven, but we let it go its own way other than that.
                Originally posted by Priceless
                Good to see you're so reasonable.
                Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                Very well, said.
                Originally posted by Rover
                A fair assessment Bob.

                Comment


                • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                  Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                  I think Afghanistan was a good example of when full scale boots on the ground can be warranted.

                  1) Adequate provocation (9/11)
                  2) Strong likelihood of future danger (more 9/11s)
                  3) Workable military goal (behead AQ)
                  4) Defensible political goal (remove the Taliban, who hosted AQ)

                  Some of the things mentioned in your post -- take out a terrorist leader, rescue a hostage -- can be accomplished with special ops.

                  The military is a savings account. It's vital to have it for emergencies, but just because you do doesn't mean you are now free to spend money everywhere. Too many people see the military as a checking account -- want something? No problem, dip into savings.
                  And still a waste of money. Karzai screwed us every turn.

                  We should have got in and formed a military base and stayed there and ran covert and drone operations until Osama was dead and then got out. The hell with their government, they don't care about it so why should we?
                  **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                  Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                  Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                    That's what I think US policy should be from now on. Behave and sort out your own problems or we're dropping in with air strikes and maybe seeing if there's some tolerable people on the ground to ally with if troops are needed. Kurds are a great example. I'd arm them to the teeth and let them take over as much of the country as possible as a reward for being the most stable and normal people over there.

                    I also think the US is too beholden to current borders, when some of these were forced upon these areas a hundred years ago. Split up Iraq if needed and do the same thing for Syria. Some of these countries boundaries no longer make any sense, and if splitting them up stops the bloodshed so be it. The former Yugoslavia is a much better place now that those countries have gone to their respective corners and stopped fighting over who takes over what. Czechoslovakia had a peaceful breakup. Now Europe and the Middle East aren't an apples to apples comparison but still, there's something to be said for this approach.
                    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                      Originally posted by Rover View Post
                      That's what I think US policy should be from now on. Behave and sort out your own problems or we're dropping in with air strikes and maybe seeing if there's some tolerable people on the ground to ally with if troops are needed. Kurds are a great example. I'd arm them to the teeth and let them take over as much of the country as possible as a reward for being the most stable and normal people over there.

                      I also think the US is too beholden to current borders, when some of these were forced upon these areas a hundred years ago. Split up Iraq if needed and do the same thing for Syria. Some of these countries boundaries no longer make any sense, and if splitting them up stops the bloodshed so be it. The former Yugoslavia is a much better place now that those countries have gone to their respective corners and stopped fighting over who takes over what. Czechoslovakia had a peaceful breakup. Now Europe and the Middle East aren't an apples to apples comparison but still, there's something to be said for this approach.
                      I miss Persia anyway.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                        Originally posted by burd View Post
                        I miss Persia anyway.
                        Which one?

                        Achaemenid (the guys the Greeks beat)
                        Parthian (the guys the Romans beat)
                        Sasanian (the guys the Muslims beat)
                        Abbasid (the guys the Mongols beat)
                        Iranian (the guys the Ottomans beat)

                        You know, for a World-Historical people, the Persians did a lot of losing.
                        Last edited by Kepler; 10-03-2014, 02:25 PM.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                          Which one?

                          Achaemenid (the guys the Greeks hated)
                          Parthian (the guys the Romans hated)
                          Sasanian (the guys the Muslims hated)
                          Iranian (the guys the Ottomans hated)
                          Well, since you are being vexatious, I see none of those are listed as "the guys burd hated," so I'll take em all--every dam Persian one of them.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            Which one?

                            Achaemenid (the guys the Greeks beat)
                            Parthian (the guys the Romans beat)
                            Sasanian (the guys the Muslims beat)
                            Abbasid (the guys the Mongols beat)
                            Iranian (the guys the Ottomans beat)

                            You know, for a World-Historical people, the Persians did a lot of losing.
                            They're just like the Minnesota Vikings.
                            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                              And still a waste of money. Karzai screwed us every turn.

                              We should have got in and formed a military base and stayed there and ran covert and drone operations until Osama was dead and then got out. The hell with their government, they don't care about it so why should we?
                              Apropos of something completely different I was reading up on Herman Kahn. The Wiki on him had a passage which I believe strikes the center of the target:

                              Kahn and the Hudson Institute advised against starting a counterinsurgency war in Vietnam, but, once it had begun, they gave advice on how to wage it. ... As regards a plan, British advisers, with experience from the Commonwealth's successful counterinsurgency war in Malaya, were consulted. Kahn and the Institute, however, judged that a crucial difference between the Vietnemese and Malayan situations was the British rural constabulary in Malaya. An Institute study of the major counterinsurgency wars in recent history found a 100% correlation between successful wars and effective police forces. Kahn said "...the purpose of an army is to protect your police force. We had an army in Vietnam without a purpose."
                              That is the Afghanistan/Iraq occupation in one paragraph. History doesn't repeat; but it rhymes.
                              Cornell University
                              National Champion 1967, 1970
                              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                                Apropos of something completely different I was reading up on Herman Kahn. The Wiki on him had a passage which I believe strikes the center of the target:



                                That is the Afghanistan/Iraq occupation in one paragraph. History doesn't repeat; but it rhymes.
                                Yet, we never learn. He we are in Iraq and Syria now. No more ****ed up countries on the planet than those two.

                                Stay OFF the ground, Obama. I don't care what all those Right Wing Nut Jobs like McCain, King, Lindsey, and Ryan say. If they whine tell them to go pound some sand over there themselves.
                                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X