The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Kepler]

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

Hey, more wars = defense stocks go up = more GOP campaign contributions! Reminds me of the time Dogbert ran for President and declared he needed to form an unholy alliance with the military-industrial complex for campaign contrubutions. In the next panel an excited defense industry CEO says "You're willing to attack allies!!!" Where Dogbert replies "It has the highest ROI."

Fair enough.

[Kepler]

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

Savages from the religion of peace behead another Brit. **** them all.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth. At least 1,599,999,000 have never beheaded anybody. In fact, we killed more innocent civilians in Iraq than ever beheaded anybody.

So let's just **** all the bigots instead. It'll be faster. Don't worry -- some of them are Muslims.

[SteveP]

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

Savages from the religion of peace behead another Brit. **** them all.

[joecct]

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

Reports in that ISIS/L beheaded another prisoner - another Brit.

BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m minutes ago
Video released purporting to show Islamic State killing British hostage Alan Henning http://bbc.in/1xM3vwp

[Rover]

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

Ryan's for intervention? That contradicts all the libertarian-except-more-corporate-welfare-nom-nom-nom Cato nonsense he peddles. I don't expect him to be completely consistent (he is, after all, running for president), but that's as craven a contradiction as the Fundy-Randian eejits.

Hey, more wars = defense stocks go up = more GOP campaign contributions! Reminds me of the time Dogbert ran for President and declared he needed to form an unholy alliance with the military-industrial complex for campaign contrubutions. In the next panel an excited defense industry CEO says "You're willing to attack allies!!!" Where Dogbert replies "It has the highest ROI."

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Ryan's for intervention? That contradicts all the libertarian-except-more-corporate-welfare-nom-nom-nom Cato nonsense he peddles. I don't expect him to be completely consistent (he is, after all, running for president), but that's as craven a contradiction as the Fundy-Randian eejits.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/politics/paul-ryan-isis/

[Kepler]

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

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.

Ryan's for intervention? That contradicts all the libertarian-except-more-corporate-welfare-nom-nom-nom Cato nonsense he peddles. I don't expect him to be completely consistent (he is, after all, running for president), but that's as craven a contradiction as the Fundy-Randian eejits.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

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.

[Kepler]

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

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.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

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.

[burd]

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

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.

[Kepler]

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

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.

[burd]

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.

I miss Persia anyway.

[Rover]

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.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

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?