The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[ScoobyDoo]

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

As much as it absolutely sucks, because we've essentially wasted so many lives, and so much money there...**** Iraq. What else are we supposed to do? It was disaster, and it still is a disaster. Let the place burn.

What a colossal waste of money. Same with the Afghanistan "rebuild" efforts. A total waste.

 

[St. Clown]

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

What a colossal waste of money. Same with the Afghanistan "rebuild" efforts. A total waste.

I forget the guy's name, but he's a retired Army colonel and has since become an author. At any rate, I was listening to the man give a very succinct plan as to how to deal with future wars that could very well be much more effective. Using my own interpretation of his idea here: We only ever attack in response to having been attacked first, and when we do, we simply go into the country, kick the ever loving snot out of it and then just leave. Let the world know - and especially the country against whom we just retaliated - that there will be consequences for taking aggression against us, but that we will never be the aggressors. And if they do it again, we'll go back and do it again. Rebuilding nations that do not like us so as to turn them into allies is not working. We put in giant mounds of cash, yet we get nothing for it when we place all of these humanitarian rebuilding goals in place. WWII was entirely different than the current situation, so to look at one as the guide for the other is a flawed plan.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

I forget the guy's name, but he's a retired Army colonel and has since become an author. At any rate, I was listening to the man give a very succinct plan as to how to deal with future wars that could very well be much more effective. Using my own interpretation of his idea here: We only ever attack in response to having been attacked first, and when we do, we simply go into the country, kick the ever loving snot out of it and then just leave. Let the world know - and especially the country against whom we just retaliated - that there will be consequences for taking aggression against us, but that we will never be the aggressors. And if they do it again, we'll go back and do it again. Rebuilding nations that do not like us so as to turn them into allies is not working. We put in giant mounds of cash, yet we get nothing for it when we place all of these humanitarian rebuilding goals in place. WWII was entirely different than the current situation, so to look at one as the guide for the other is a flawed plan.

Whoever he is I totally agree with him. 100%.

 

[Rover]

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

If you think of the conflicts of the post Cold War years, nation building has really been a phenomenon of the past dozen years. Prior to Iraq:

Panama: Invade, get what's his name, leave. Kuwait: Kick out invaders, then leave. Somalia: Becomes too much trouble, either full scale war or take off, we left. Haiti: Threaten dictators with force, they leave. We don't spend time rebuilding country. Bosnia/Kosovo: Bomb troublemaking Serbs, they surrender. We leave.

For a decade, a pattern emerged from two different Presidencies, two men of different ideologies and generations on how to handle these situations. Only one turned out poorly, Somalia - a lawless country if there ever was one and we limited the damage. Only the zealotry of the Bush admin neo-con crowd (Bush II, Cheney, Rice, Bremer, Wolfowitz, Bolton, McCain, Graham, etc) brought us disasterous results.

Its up to the public to never elect likeminded people such as these to the Presidency ever again. That doesn't mean don't elect Republicans, as Bush Senior was a very good foreign policy President. It means any idiot who still thinks we should have the US military involved in Iraq disqualifies themselves from office.

 

[bigblue_dl]

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

I forget the guy's name, but he's a retired Army colonel and has since become an author. At any rate, I was listening to the man give a very succinct plan as to how to deal with future wars that could very well be much more effective. Using my own interpretation of his idea here: We only ever attack in response to having been attacked first, and when we do, we simply go into the country, kick the ever loving snot out of it and then just leave. Let the world know - and especially the country against whom we just retaliated - that there will be consequences for taking aggression against us, but that we will never be the aggressors. And if they do it again, we'll go back and do it again. Rebuilding nations that do not like us so as to turn them into allies is not working. We put in giant mounds of cash, yet we get nothing for it when we place all of these humanitarian rebuilding goals in place. WWII was entirely different than the current situation, so to look at one as the guide for the other is a flawed plan.

That sounds like a good idea to me. Enough with this flushing lives and money down the toilet in these ****hole countries.

 

[joecct]

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

I forget the guy's name, but he's a retired Army colonel and has since become an author. At any rate, I was listening to the man give a very succinct plan as to how to deal with future wars that could very well be much more effective. Using my own interpretation of his idea here: We only ever attack in response to having been attacked first, and when we do, we simply go into the country, kick the ever loving snot out of it and then just leave. Let the world know - and especially the country against whom we just retaliated - that there will be consequences for taking aggression against us, but that we will never be the aggressors. And if they do it again, we'll go back and do it again. Rebuilding nations that do not like us so as to turn them into allies is not working. We put in giant mounds of cash, yet we get nothing for it when we place all of these humanitarian rebuilding goals in place. WWII was entirely different than the current situation, so to look at one as the guide for the other is a flawed plan.

Wonderful idea as long as original attack is not a knockout blow.

 

[joecct]

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

If you think of the conflicts of the post Cold War years, nation building has really been a phenomenon of the past dozen years. Prior to Iraq:

Panama: Invade, get what's his name, leave. Kuwait: Kick out invaders, then leave. Somalia: Becomes too much trouble, either full scale war or take off, we left. Haiti: Threaten dictators with force, they leave. We don't spend time rebuilding country. Bosnia/Kosovo: Bomb troublemaking Serbs, they surrender. We leave.

For a decade, a pattern emerged from two different Presidencies, two men of different ideologies and generations on how to handle these situations. Only one turned out poorly, Somalia - a lawless country if there ever was one and we limited the damage. Only the zealotry of the Bush admin neo-con crowd (Bush II, Cheney, Rice, Bremer, Wolfowitz, Bolton, McCain, Graham, etc) brought us disasterous results.

Its up to the public to never elect likeminded people such as these to the Presidency ever again. That doesn't mean don't elect Republicans, as Bush Senior was a very good foreign policy President. It means any idiot who still thinks we should have the US military involved in Iraq disqualifies themselves from office.

If the Shah had not been deposed???

 

[MountieBoyOz]

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

I forget the guy's name, but he's a retired Army colonel and has since become an author. At any rate, I was listening to the man give a very succinct plan as to how to deal with future wars that could very well be much more effective. Using my own interpretation of his idea here: We only ever attack in response to having been attacked first, and when we do, we simply go into the country, kick the ever loving snot out of it and then just leave. Let the world know - and especially the country against whom we just retaliated - that there will be consequences for taking aggression against us, but that we will never be the aggressors. And if they do it again, we'll go back and do it again. Rebuilding nations that do not like us so as to turn them into allies is not working. We put in giant mounds of cash, yet we get nothing for it when we place all of these humanitarian rebuilding goals in place. WWII was entirely different than the current situation, so to look at one as the guide for the other is a flawed plan.

Great idea. The threat of we'll turn your country into a parking lot if you hit us first is a great idea.

 

[bigblue_dl]

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

Great idea. The threat of we'll turn your country into a parking lot if you hit us first is a great idea.

So...Like the cold war, but with an enemy that is even more mentally unstable than the Soviets?

I guess maybe this idea isn't as good as I originally thought.

 

[goldy_331]

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

Great idea. The threat of we'll turn your country into a parking lot if you hit us first is a great idea.

Especially against fanatics who feel their ultimate reward only comes AFTER they are martyred for the cause.

 

[Old Pio]

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

In all seriousness, the US Army has begun its investigation into Bergdahl.

Yeah, they ought to just disregard any assertions or evidence of desertion from members of his unit. I'll say again: he's sounding every day more and more like an acutely confused young man. He's been held by savages for five years, which strikes me as sufficient punishment for anything we think we know he did. Nevertheless, we've got a UCMJ which requires certain standards of behavior from our service personnel. The Army has no choice but to investigate Bergdahl and his behavior. IMO, the worst he faces is a DD. But that's just my opinion. I wouldn't expect the Army to act on something so flimsy. Just as you shouldn't expect the Army to act on your opinion.

 

[Rover]

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

Yeah, they ought to just disregard any assertions or evidence of desertion from members of his unit. I'll say again: he's sounding every day more and more like an acutely confused young man. He's been held by savages for five years, which strikes me as sufficient punishment for anything we think we know he did. Nevertheless, we've got a UCMJ which requires certain standards of behavior from our service personnel. The Army has no choice but to investigate Bergdahl and his behavior. IMO, the worst he faces is a DD. But that's just my opinion. I wouldn't expect the Army to act on something so flimsy. Just as you shouldn't expect the Army to act on your opinion.

Not sure who stole Opie's posting ID, but this is a lucid and reasonable take on the situation. My biggest problem with the Bergdahl situation is the rush to judgement before actually talking to the guy. If he wandered off to take a leak, 5 years in captivity with the Taliban ought to be sufficient punishment. It amazes me how many armchair analysts get air time nowadays including those saying that we should have either left him there, or done nothing and eventually he would have been released. What if the guy was actually captured at his post? Hell of a thing to not give him the benefit of the doubt given the situation he was in.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Can't say I'm too worried about the Bergdahl thing, with the Middle East careening toward out and out Sunni-Shiite war. This thing gets uglier by the day, with Maliki, instead of looking for a way to diffuse things, rather stoking the fires by accusing Saudi Arabia of genocide, declaring a boycott of the main Sunni political bloc, etc. There seem to be very few rational, reasonable actors in the entire region.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Can't say I'm too worried about the Bergdahl thing, with the Middle East careening toward out and out Sunni-Shiite war. This thing gets uglier by the day, with Maliki, instead of looking for a way to diffuse things, rather stoking the fires by accusing Saudi Arabia of genocide, declaring a boycott of the main Sunni political bloc, etc. There seem to be very few rational, reasonable actors in the entire region.

Somehow the Protestants and Catholics moved on and decided war wasn't the answer to settle their differences. Sunni and Shia would rather fight.

 

[Kepler]

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

This presupposes Bush and his handlers actually believed they were WMD rather than manufactured the evidence to start a war they simply wanted. Either that or they were completely incompetent and logical discourse would have gone over their heads.

I wasn't thinking about convincing the administration. They were Neoconservative, and the lynch pin of Neoconservative theory is the idea that the US dominate the Middle East by force. They still believe that to this day (an ideology can never fail, it can only be failed). But aggressive questioning of the administration might have given us the breathing space to halt the rush to war and made the 2004 election about whether to launch a war of choice. They still might have won that public debate, but it would have been thoroughly debated.

It is very important to put the blame squarely where it belongs: on those who rushed forward with the invasion and occupation and their Utopian worldview where the US would be welcomed as liberators, would create a model democracy, and would by sheer military might and moral will transform the region. There's a reason those people do not want to "re-litigate" their actions -- they were disastrously wrong and their ideas should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Neoconservatism must be thoroughly discredited among conservatives. The risk they are running now is they will grab any tool to hand to bash Obama, and exonerate the Neocons as a campaign tactic.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Disastrously wrong is a pretty good summary for what we've done in Iraq. It's a hard thing though to have to say you're ok with a strongman like Hussein, with all he did, rather than hope something better could happen there. But, as times marches on, Hussein's thuggery keeping some semblance of peace and order doesn't seem to be the worst thing that Iraq could ever experience. The world is a hard place, especially in certain corners.

 

[Rover]

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

I wasn't thinking about convincing the administration. They were Neoconservative, and the lynch pin of Neoconservative theory is the idea that the US dominate the Middle Eastern via force. They still believe that to this day (an ideology can never fail, it can only be failed). But aggressive questioning of the administration might have given us the breathing space to halt the rush to war and made the 2004 election about whether to launch a war of choice. They still might have won that public debate, but it would have been thoroughly debated.

It is very important to put the blame squarely where it belongs: on those who rushed forward with the invasion and occupation and their Utopian worldview where the US would be welcomed as liberators, would create a model democracy, and would by sheer military might and moral will transform the region. There's a reason those people do not want to "re-litigate" their actions -- they were disastrously wrong and their ideas should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Neoconservatism must be thoroughly discredited among conservatives. The risk they are running now is they will grab any tool to hand to bash Obama, and exonerate the Neocons as a campaign tactic.

I'm heartened to see some pushback on these idiots, even apparently on Fox news where some anchor went after one of these clowns. Asshat Bill Kristol is also getting called on his idiocy, and some Congressman went after McCain, rightfully so IMO. Further proof that journalism is held in the same esteem as the used car and payday loan businesses. Why does anybody insist on booking these people for their shows? Judith Miller even got a gig on Fox I believe. Judith Miller...

 

[Kepler]

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

I'm heartened to see some pushback on these idiots, even apparently on Fox news where some anchor went after one of these clowns.

That was Shepard Smith. He's gone off-script a few times the last 6 months. My money's on psychotic break over attack of conscience, but either way he's going to wake up with Gretchen Carlson's severed head some morning.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

That was Shepard Smith. He's gone off-script a few times the last 6 months. My money's on psychotic break over attack of conscience, but either way he's going to wake up with Gretchen Carlson's severed head some morning.

Smith has been known to buck the company line.

 

[Kepler]

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

Disastrously wrong is a pretty good summary for what we've done in Iraq. It's a hard thing though to have to say you're ok with a strongman like Hussein, with all he did, rather than hope something better could happen there. But, as times marches on, Hussein's thuggery keeping some semblance of peace and order doesn't seem to be the worst thing that Iraq could ever experience. The world is a hard place, especially in certain corners.

Another lesson is violent religious fundamentalism can only be defeated from within. Secularism is an antitoxin that must be produced by the body; it can't be injected into it.