USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Are you ****ing kidding me? Have you been watching the news? What do you want him to actually do?
Are you ****ing kidding me? Have you been watching the news? What do you want him to actually do?
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Funny thing about playing whack a mole. You never win.
Funny thing about playing whack a mole. You never win.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
And there's another mole, **WHACK**
And there's another mole, **WHACK**
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Feel bad for the journalist, but in reality these ISIS aholes will most likely be eating a drone sooner or later anyway. Zero point in committing combat troops to Iraq despite all the neo-cons in the country and on the message board who might get some pleasure at that thought....
Feel bad for the journalist, but in reality these ISIS aholes will most likely be eating a drone sooner or later anyway. Zero point in committing combat troops to Iraq despite all the neo-cons in the country and on the message board who might get some pleasure at that thought....
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Oh, I don't want to send troops in. Send the biggest and baddest weaponry we have at them. No holds barred. Make them glow.
Oh, I don't want to send troops in. Send the biggest and baddest weaponry we have at them. No holds barred. Make them glow.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Never said anything about troops.
Support the people on the ground who are on our side with weapon sales and air power.
I'm not in favor of troops.
I have no qualms about vaporizing theses clowns from the safety of a computer screen thousands of miles away.
The only troops that I'd like to see are special forces acting on intelligence with a high probability of success and low probability of casualties either rescuing our hostage(s) or taking out their leadership.
Never said anything about troops.
Support the people on the ground who are on our side with weapon sales and air power.
I'm not in favor of troops.
I have no qualms about vaporizing theses clowns from the safety of a computer screen thousands of miles away.
The only troops that I'd like to see are special forces acting on intelligence with a high probability of success and low probability of casualties either rescuing our hostage(s) or taking out their leadership.
unofan
Well-known member
So do you want us to be the world's policeman or no? Or does it simply depend on doing the opposite of whatever it is the President is advocating at that time?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
I hope we never put boots on the ground in the Middle East ever again. Back the regimes that are useful, don't antagonize the ones that aren't, and provide anybody support when they want to take on the non-state actors within their borders. Materiel, not men.
I hope we never put boots on the ground in the Middle East ever again. Back the regimes that are useful, don't antagonize the ones that aren't, and provide anybody support when they want to take on the non-state actors within their borders. Materiel, not men.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Seems reasonable. Of course when something really bad happens (like 9/11, a genocide of some sort, etc.) it's going to be tough to not go in with more than material. While going into Iraq was questioned by some folks here and there at the time, I don't recall much opposition to going into Afghanistan on either side of the aisle. Of course realistically Afghanistan (as did Iraq) had a number of huge question marks over what we could really do there long term.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Even I supported going into Afghanistan, and I've never really been comfortable with criticisms of the early operations there. It seems like hindsight to say we could have caught the AQ leaders and Osama before they made the run to Tora Bora. I don't think there was any credible intel at the time that amounted to a likelihood they would use that escape route.
If we have learned anything, left and right, and if we can encode it now in our DNA before the next actual incident splits us into opposing camps for purely partisan reasons, I hope it is:
1. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
2. Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
3. Don't invade countries to topple their regimes.
4. Don't occupy countries, period.
There are appropriate uses for the military: repelling invasions (here and on allied soil) and keeping trade lanes safe. There are even appropriate uses for the military on hostile soil (eliminating a war enemy's ability to continue fighting). But the '91 Gulf War is my model: have a plan, execute with overwhelming force, avoid engaging the enemy's civilian population, get out as soon as you have accomplished your initial aims. Our two biggest blunders, Vietnam and Iraq, came about because of Mission Creep. For a country with our ridiculously overgrown military might, that is our only real danger.
Even I supported going into Afghanistan, and I've never really been comfortable with criticisms of the early operations there. It seems like hindsight to say we could have caught the AQ leaders and Osama before they made the run to Tora Bora. I don't think there was any credible intel at the time that amounted to a likelihood they would use that escape route.
If we have learned anything, left and right, and if we can encode it now in our DNA before the next actual incident splits us into opposing camps for purely partisan reasons, I hope it is:
1. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
2. Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
3. Don't invade countries to topple their regimes.
4. Don't occupy countries, period.
There are appropriate uses for the military: repelling invasions (here and on allied soil) and keeping trade lanes safe. There are even appropriate uses for the military on hostile soil (eliminating a war enemy's ability to continue fighting). But the '91 Gulf War is my model: have a plan, execute with overwhelming force, avoid engaging the enemy's civilian population, get out as soon as you have accomplished your initial aims. Our two biggest blunders, Vietnam and Iraq, came about because of Mission Creep. For a country with our ridiculously overgrown military might, that is our only real danger.
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
See, I know you think I'm a total wack job on social issues, but we really do have a good bit of common ground on foreign policy. I've always thought that foreign policy presented more opportunities for common ground between both sides of the aisle.
I largely agree. Afghanistan was always going to be a tough one. History shows that foreign interlopers never have much success there, but we had to address where the AQ folks were coming from and the Taliban was fairly well ensconced there. Things will likely fall apart there again once we get out, which was always the likelihood. Maybe there was a way to go in and deal with some stuff and then get out and send the message not to harbor AQ again? Hard to say how that would have gone. I agree mission creep is a real concern.
See, I know you think I'm a total wack job on social issues, but we really do have a good bit of common ground on foreign policy. I've always thought that foreign policy presented more opportunities for common ground between both sides of the aisle.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
I suggest that Jefferson's actions against the Barbary pirates in 1801 - 1805 is the more appropriate model for the current situation vis-a-vis ISIS.
There is only one thing that bullies understand, and that is superior force. No amount of eloquence will suffice.
They want to become martyrs to their cause? fine, let's help them achieve that goal.
I suggest that Jefferson's actions against the Barbary pirates in 1801 - 1805 is the more appropriate model for the current situation vis-a-vis ISIS.
There is only one thing that bullies understand, and that is superior force. No amount of eloquence will suffice.
They want to become martyrs to their cause? fine, let's help them achieve that goal.
P
Priceless
Guest
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
I agree. And I know you think I'm a total whack job on social issues, too.
I agree. And I know you think I'm a total whack job on social issues, too.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Naw. There's some liberal wack jobs around here on social issues, but you're a bit more reasonable than them. I just consider you to be significantly misguided.I agree. And I know you think I'm a total whack job on social issues, too.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
What little (and I mean little) I know from that period is that the Barbary pirates were basically working a thousand year-old business plan in conjunction with the local North African "states" (really just strongman-run outposts). The Europeans were used to paying them tribute for the same reason we spent millions in bribes in Anbar Province -- pay the local toughs to keep their streets clean. Enter TJ and his idealism (and horse sense), and war it was. It worked out well, but it could have gone pretty badly.
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" sounds manly but historically it's dumb. Bribery is entirely reasonable in situations where it's impractical to project force.
What little (and I mean little) I know from that period is that the Barbary pirates were basically working a thousand year-old business plan in conjunction with the local North African "states" (really just strongman-run outposts). The Europeans were used to paying them tribute for the same reason we spent millions in bribes in Anbar Province -- pay the local toughs to keep their streets clean. Enter TJ and his idealism (and horse sense), and war it was. It worked out well, but it could have gone pretty badly.
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" sounds manly but historically it's dumb. Bribery is entirely reasonable in situations where it's impractical to project force.
- Status