Serenity

That is no way out of line. McCain’s own words are we will be in Iraq for 100 years…..bomb IRAN…….so not out of line. McCain is more of Bush. So by your measure we would have ceded the Korean penninsula after 50,000+ American soldiers died there. And now South Korea instead of being a staunch ally, trusted trading partner, and free republic would be the other side of Kim's empire? Get a clue.

It is IN FACT, the duty of every Muslim to convert 'non-believers'. They are IN FACT justified in killing non believers if they refuse the words of the prophet. Believe it. Not every Muslim is that far to the end of the spectrum by any means, but there are certainly enough of them looking to bang heads to make it a serious threat. Good thing I'm watching your back there OW, otherwise you might need to start reading the Khoran.

That's WAY out line. Even for you man.

9/11 was a follow on attack to several probes that occurred in the 90's, personally I think it's absurd to blame former President Clinton, as this act was the result of foreign elements intent of killing Americans and disrupting our way of life. Former President Clinton didn't invite these people to kill Americans, any more than President Bush did on 9/11. It is a failure of our nation to be so open and trusting of people who hate us, and encasing ourselves in bureaucracy so mind numbing we can't even arrest and deport known criminals right under our noses. Clinton would have willingly pulled the trigger on Bin Laden, but had been let down several years earlier by then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin (appointed by Former President Clinton), who's failure to follow on then Chairman of the Joint Chief's Colin Powell's call for armor, and armored infantry support, in Operation Restore Hope (Somalia) led to the largest firefight American servicemen had engaged in since Vietnam. "In September General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks and armored vehicles for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aideed's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of three U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot." http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/aspin.htm After the media roasting, the Joint Chiefs were extremely hesitant to commit to any military operation, including clandestine operations targeting Bin Laden. The C.I.A led the charge in that regard. This failed reliance on modern battlefield strategy to produce quick surgical victories (in this case a small Special Operations task force) was later reintroduced by Sec. Of Def. Donald Rumsfeld against the advice of his the COJC. Anyway, most of the key criminals are traceable to Afghan Jihadists, and virtually none Afghans, but foreign fighters primarily Saudi's and Iranian backed agents from various locations. Reading Ghost Wars is a good place to start, then tie that into Charlie Wilson's War, dig deeper by reading declassified CIA material, then "The Bear Came Over The Mountain", anything you can find by Artyom Borovik (The Hidden War), "Not A Good Day to Die", Marcus Luttrel's book "Lone Survivor"(Reno A. is my boss), "Jaw Breaker, "Hot Steel" by Terence White. Bin Laden was under an intelligence radar as far back as the late eighties, where he had gained some amount of notoriety for his Jihadist activities with the Muj. Many of the intel failures are directly linked to the Clinton administration, this is well documented, and after having spent most of my adult life immersed in government service, I can, and have previously mentioned the fall-out Clinton's presidency had within certain aspects of the federal systems (Military, Intelligence, and Federal LE) I witnessed firsthand. He lied before congress under oath, and should have been impeached. If he had been an F.B.I. agent and lied under oath he would have gone to jail. I find neither party to exemplify the standards I believe taxpaying Americans deserve. Being polarized and placing blame hasn't really gotten us to where we need to be. I do think we need to finish the job we started and try and put the genie back in the bottle. Turning tail, and hoping the whole thing goes away isn't really the answer. Maybe a determined and honorable effort to either win through evidence of power and resolve, or a willingness to dialog and compromise might solve some aspects, but the hardcore Jihadists will have to be eradicated like a virus.

Sorry, I didn't realize that the entire portion of the article I copied and pasted didn't contain the attribution. Being a student of the whole thing, I've come to realize, understand, and accept the reasons we were led into war in the 1st place. That was the point of my 1st post. Anyway, have a good weekend. Good skiing.

There is a whole different train of thought out there that simply does not follow the liberal democratic party line hook line and sinker. I've seen firsthand the evidence of poor journalism in the middle east and elsewhere. I sometimes feel compelled to offer up a different perspective. I remember there was a time in the not so distant past when it wa actually considered prudent to examine different options rather than blindly follow the mainstream trend. Right now the mainstream trend is only partially supported by facts, while being driven by hype. If you don't like it that's too bad. Seeing FW's post reminded me how a Washington Congressman led the charge towards capitulation.

Well Tvashtarkatena, considering your spew is all over about every other thread on this website, it's kind of hard to ignore you 100% of the time. You should try and separate your fantasy life and reconcile the reality that you're nothing more than a chronic opinionated poster on a web forum. I just hope your mouth clamps shut a lot faster than your fingers do on a keyboard. *** A different P.O.V. The prominent features of the global economy in 2008 will be oil and energy issues, a U.S. dollar that is weakening yet becoming more important and a strong performance by the U.S. economy. Oil prices finally will fall in 2008. Much of the price buildup in recent years has been the result of geopolitical risk introduced by Iran war scares, the occupation of Iraq, Nigerian domestic politics, Venezuelan seizures, piracy in the Strait of Malacca, the war against al Qaeda and Russia’s energy policy. The world has changed. Iran is moving toward an agreement with the United States on Iraq, Nigerian politics have calmed, the market has priced in Venezuelan nationalism, states in the Malacca region have managed to get piracy under control and al Qaeda’s operations have been sequestered in the Afghan-Pakistani border region. The only wild card remaining in 2008 is the Russians, who could limit their exports of oil and natural gas as part of Moscow’s struggle with the West. However, since such restrictions would impact Russia’s own exports, any geopolitical impact on energy prices in 2008 is unlikely. The expected downward trend in oil prices will not carry over to other commodities, such as food and minerals. The price increases of these products in recent years are the result of rising and more varied demand — such as the new biofuels industry’s increasing need for crops. There is no reason to expect such demand to falter, and there are no new supplies of any minerals expected to come on line that might be large enough to cause prices to substantially drop. The one exception could be foodstuffs, whose supply in large part is determined by the weather (something we do not attempt to forecast). While energy prices will moderate in 2008, there will not be a collapse. Since the declines will be relatively mild and since most oil exporters have managed to save up vast sums, very few producers will suffer any substantial financial stress. In fact, nearly all oil producers will continue to accrue near-record amounts of income, stabilizing them politically and economically despite the moderate downturn in prices. The two countries to watch are Argentina and Venezuela, which both have been spending their petroleum income as fast as it has come in, and whose lack of long-term investment in production has resulted in steady output drops in output for years. Yet there is another aspect to this equation. Prices have been strong since 2003 and have given rise to a major trend that will surge forward in 2008: the steady deliberalization of the energy sector. Producing states — from Venezuela to Kazakhstan — are seeking to rake in as much income from energy production as they can, regardless of how dependent they might be upon foreigners to produce that energy. On the coin’s other side, consuming states — from Malaysia to Argentina — need to assert control over their energy industries in order to head off the social and economic problems caused by sustained high prices. Some countries on both sides — such as China — are afraid of how powerful their energy firms have gotten, and they see deliberalization as a means of combating that challenge. Countries such as Russia see state control of the energy sector as a good thing — and a good thing that allows other policy options. Still, more — most notably Hungary — see such intervention as a means of preventing undue foreign influence. In 2008, energy deliberalization will be the game of the day, and Stratfor expects the following countries to be particularly active in asserting the role of the state: Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, China, South Korea, Nigeria, Indonesia, Japan and Canada. Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar — which has slipped by 50 percent in the past six years — will give more ground in 2008, since the trends that have shaped the past few years have not yet run their course. Unconvinced that the euro would succeed, central banks dumped European currencies when it was launched in 1998. They now are dialing back from that position, as well as purchasing more gold. Both of these trends have a negative impact on the U.S. dollar, and both have more room to run. None of this is a vote of no confidence in the dollar; contrary to the crowing out of Venezuela, Iran and, on occasion, Russia, the dollar is in no danger of losing its status as the world’s de facto currency. In fact, contrary to conventional wisdom, the role of the U.S. dollar in the international economy is increasing. All of the energy-producing economies sell their products in U.S. dollars. The Chinese yuan is de facto pegged to the dollar, and nearly every other economy in the western Pacific Rim is loosely pegged to it as well. Combine the dramatic increase in the size of the Chinese economy and the pileup of dollars in the Arabian Peninsula from high oil prices (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries members earned more than half a trillion dollars in 2007 from oil alone) and the result is a de facto dollar bloc. Yet none of these economies boasts sufficient size or sophistication to handle all of this inflow, and how they manage such vast sums will prove a major development of 2008. Many of the Arab oil states have chosen to invest in economic diversification so that they will not suffer as they have in times past the next time oil prices plunge. To this end, they are investing heavily in refining and heavy chemical industry facilities, both at home and in consumer countries. In most cases, the Arabs are providing only the capital for such ventures, with either imported expatriates or foreign hosts providing both the labor and the management for the projects. The Russians, of course, are investing in their own geopolitical push and are attempting to purchase as much energy infrastructure in Europe as possible (something the Europeans are resisting fiercely), while the Chinese are hoping to use at least some of the cash to bail out those of their state-owned enterprises that are worth saving. But even this leaves the vast majority of the accrued monies untouched — in dollars or U.S.-based investments. Beyond the tactical details, the bottom line is that most of Asia, the Arabian Peninsula and the United States have de facto merged into a single system of exchange that has become more important in purely economic terms than the U.S. relationship with Europe. Not since the heady days of the British Empire has a single currency held sway over so much of the world. Yes, these entities are diversifying their investments, which is reducing the value of the U.S. dollar vis-à-vis the euro, but the more important trend is the strengthening of the dollar’s role as the reserve currency of the world — forming the base of the reserve economy of the world. Combine weaker energy prices (which free up resources) with a lower dollar (which boosts exports) and the U.S. economy is primed for a strong performance in 2008. A brief slowdown in early 2007 shook out some inconsistencies that built up during the post-9/11 boom, and the stage is set for another extended expansion. Many will mourn that the subprime lending crisis is about to cause major problems — and perhaps even a recession. Stratfor sees these fears as overblown for two reasons. First, mortgages that enter default are different from other defaulted loans in that mortgages have their own built-in collateral in the form of houses. Rather than getting back pennies on the dollar, creditors likely will recoup most of their money. This, combined with the fact that not all subprime loans will go bust, drastically reduces subprime’s impact. Second, every so often, the Western financial sector needs a shock to remind itself that it is not Asia and that loans need to be evaluated on strict economic criteria before being granted. During the 2005-06 subprime surge, this lesson had been forgotten. Now it has been remembered, and banking institutions have forced the mortgage broker industry to rate loans more appropriately. As a result, most of those brokers have gone under, and many construction projects have lost funding. Those who have been hurt worst are those who leveraged subprime mortgage assets (and should have known better). This rationalization of risk is bad for the housing sector in the short run but excellent for the banking sector and the wider economy in the longer run. Yes, one sector has taken hits and will take more in 2008. But the primacy of economic rationality already has reasserted itself. This is a core strength of the U.S. and Western systems; without it, these economies would look like Japan’s. The knocks resulting from the subprime crisis could indeed take some shine off of growth in 2008, but that would simply change it from a banner year to “merely” a strong year. The global trade agenda will be somewhat muted in 2008. Talks on the next World Trade Organization round, Doha, have been all but suspended, and no major economy will join the organization in the next year. Neither will there be any progress on other major deals among or within trade blocks — largely a result of European efforts to push through their newest treaty (an echo of the constitution that failed in 2004) and the U.S. presidential election. Trade talks will be limited to ironing out a few minor bilateral deals between the United States and small powers — deals that are now before Congress — and between the European Union and its former colonies.

EVERYTHING you just wrote is a misinformed opinion, that once again you have stated as fact. Your thoughts on many issues are so far off base, they're laughable. I usually keep you firmly on the ignore feature, and now I am even more content to do so.

Have you lost a lot of sleep there Kevbone?

The majority of US force structure is still aligned in the Pacific Rim, the air superiority, and naval assets of the United States are still paramount the last I checked. China has about 300 billion problems of their own to deal with.

Economics certainly plays into it, no doubt, but IMHO your fatalism/defeatism is not a solution.

Seriously man, I'm not an economic strategist, and that's not the level I'm trying to engage in. Feel free to debate that with someone else.

Well I don't know how creating a battle space is criminal. Our other option was to what? 1. Fortify the shores of the US with coastal gun batteries? 2. Provide in depth search and seizure of every unlicensed illegal alien? 3. Storm into 130+ foreign countries unannounced capture, and deport known terrorists? 4. Swirl our crystal ball and try to figure out how many western hating crazed jihadist there might be out there? Seriously, do you believe the proven enemies of America, your sovereign country, were content with the attack of 9/11? It was a failure in the sense that they weren't able to follow it up. If they had hit a port, and perhaps another sensitive target related to energy production in the CONUS sphere, that would have been their goal. I think we're slowly getting a grasp on how to deal with things, but about the time you get it figured out, the whole game changes again.

Kind of like our 2001 SF wunderkinder teaching battle hardened Northern Alliance troops how to fight? No, they just want weaponry, and the know how to use it. They'll do the rest. Iran is fighting a war with us, we tried to take it down a notch, by sending out that bogus NIE report, but they decided to go down another path. I believe you are about to see another phase in the war in Iraq. Possibly the most bloody yet.

The very nature of terrorism is often a decentralized decision making process (just think it up and do it). AQ was one of the 1st to 'go corporate' and get organized to the point where it was as much as entity as an ideology. Initially Al Qaeda was nothing more than a well funded grassroots movement, linked by a shared ideology, and tracing it's foundations back to the Soviet Jihad. By the time of 9/11 it was a series of compartmentalized cells able to conduct operations independently, but beholden to one brain. OBL. In the build up prior to 9/11 we had found ourselves coming up short in the HUMINT sector. We could eavesdrop, and run satellite passes, but very little of that was useful in itself. This was a problem not easily solvable, as it involved sovereign rights of nations, and jurisdiction. By focusing operations in Iraq we sent the Jihadists a message, and they came in droves, the same way they did in Afghanistan against the Soviets. This tactic has been working, and Al Qaeda in Iraq has been virtually destroyed. However, note that recently there has been a surge in attacks outside the sphere of Iraq. North Africa has recently seen a surge of related incidents. search Mauritania. Of late they have merged with several other groups to form a decentralized conglomerate, returning to their pre 9/11 strategy (Gamaah al-Islamiyah (GAI) & Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) ). Their aim is still to produce a spectacular follow on assault to 9/11. There was a thwarted airliner attack in 2006, but the Jihadist also suffered several setbacks in the period of 1993-2001 leading up to the successful assaults on the World Trade Center, and other targets. you'll hear the war referred to as the "Long War" for a reason.

Anyway, I know you guys are going to believe whatever you want to. Just know we're all doing our best to make you proud, with honor and restraint, even if you won't ever appreciate it. Those congressman should be ashamed. Later.

The bottom line was they had no business being there in the build up to the war. I remember feeling that they were distinctly giving shelter to the enemy. I sat next to that POS on a plane from DC one time, had to professionally restrain myself from telling him what a shameful thing I thought he had done.

China does not 'own our asses'. The US economy alone still eclipses the economy of China and Europe combined.

The war was started mainly for several reasons. 1. We were in a defensive stance as a result of Al Qaeda's first strike initiative. 2. Terrorist organizations by their nature are decentralized, and are not a streamlined target such as a country, or a large conventional military is. 3. Iraq had strategic position. 4. It gave the bad guys a place to come kill us (and vice-versa), instead of waiting to see where/what they would hit next. 5. There were no good options. Turn the other cheek, and let's hope the bad guys go away is not a strategy. Look at Spain, they pulled out due to the terrorist threats, and Islamic factions continue to target them regardless. Let's not forget, that all this played into a broader geo-political strategy. Believe what you will.

Doug, could you please cite your clandestine credentials, assuming they are declassified, that would make you a SME on covert weapons shipments? Just kidding, don't feel like you have to come up with some sharp comeback.

You've never shaken hands with someone you secretly wanted to kick in the balls?

:noway: They aren't above mine. But this guy is. Judo Gene Lebell.

Anyone here an EMT or EMT-P for either of these companies? Mind answering some questions I have via PM if you do? Thanks, Serenity

I remember you telling me many times how enamored you are of the Mounties. Or was that all pillow talk baby?

Not sure what type of biking you are referring to, but climbing is much cheaper in comparison. MY DH race bike alone is around 6K and requires about 20% maintenance a year to maintain. Running offers concentric loading, but in the long term I think you are better off cycling as a form of sustained training to build extensive cardiovascular endurance. Mostly from the perspective that running is hard on the knees and hips, and for most people leads to degenerative effects in the long term. Although boring at times, a treadmill can mitigate the impact of running a bit, and still provides a way to maintain your heart rate. +2 for Cyclocross. Pure pain = pure ecstasy! Just my 2 cents.