Serenity Posted March 17, 2009 Author Posted March 17, 2009 Fighting terrorism with the military is the poorest idea of all, though. When it comes to terrorism, the military is our crudest and least effective weapon. Our values, diplomacy, economy, strategic relationships, international alliances, and law enforcement together are the only effective frontlines against terrorism. Any time we have to deploy our military against terrorists we have essentially failed and are being forced to use our solution of last resort. The military has a role to play in an integrated whole, but it should be in a service, rather than a leading, role. Sorry, you're very astute, but not entirely right in this case. All those things play into it, but a fair sized portion of the threat resides on a battlefield that no LE agency can handle, and no pure diplomacy will resolve. Quote
JosephH Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Sorry, you're very astute, but not entirely right in this case. All those things play into it, but a fair sized portion of the threat resides on a battlefield that no LE agency can handle, and no pure diplomacy will resolve. That's my point though, once 'battlefields' are in play we've already failed on multiple fronts and putting guys like you in bad positions that were best avoided by other means. Once our military is in play, however, then we need to provide them with any and all resources they needs to be effective - which includes appropriate combatant detention centers. Quote
Serenity Posted March 17, 2009 Author Posted March 17, 2009 Problem is that battlefields already exist, we have to face the reality we have versus the reality we desire. http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/01/a-proposal-for-a-unifying-stra/ Quote
JosephH Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Good article, but it should be noted that would also require changes to how we pursue our coporate and national interests relative to the political structures of nation-states, i.e. we need to insure SOF isn't synonymous with death squads and paramilitaries supporting corporate interests above those of the population at large. That [containment] legacy is why many Central and South American nations have turned against us over time. Quote
kevbone Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Fighting terrorism with the military is the poorest idea of all, though. When it comes to terrorism, the military is our crudest and least effective weapon. Our values, diplomacy, economy, strategic relationships, international alliances, and law enforcement together are the only effective frontlines against terrorism. Any time we have to deploy our military against terrorists we have essentially failed and are being forced to use our solution of last resort. The military has a role to play in an integrated whole, but it should be in a service, rather than a leading, role. Sorry, you're very astute, but not entirely right in this case. All those things play into it, but a fair sized portion of the threat resides on a battlefield that no LE agency can handle, and no pure diplomacy will resolve. JH is right and Serenity is flat out wrong. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Are you fucking kidding? You can't piss out a forest fire homes. Your shitty diplomacy, fucked up economy and your lack of law enforcement (crippled by liberals) is the reason that there is a forest fire. Better drink up bud. Shitty law enforcement? We've got 2.2 million people in prison right now, by far the highest incarceration rate in the world. What universe do you hail from? Joseph's post is spot on. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 There are a number of people in the intelligence community who have stated that building a rapport and changing the status of detainees from combatant to non-combatant would have been a wise thing to do previously. This does not change the fact that closing detention facilities is not a wise move. Changing what happens in those prisons and from a legal standpoint is. This lean towards a law enforcement solution is a poor idea. so you believe its possible to have a secret prison and NOT torture people in it? Yeah, Gitmo is such a SECRET! He's refering to the network of CIA black sites around the world. They were a very bad idea, and now, fortunately, they are being shut down by order of the President. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) Fighting terrorism with the military is the poorest idea of all, though. When it comes to terrorism, the military is our crudest and least effective weapon. Our values, diplomacy, economy, strategic relationships, international alliances, and law enforcement together are the only effective frontlines against terrorism. Any time we have to deploy our military against terrorists we have essentially failed and are being forced to use our solution of last resort. The military has a role to play in an integrated whole, but it should be in a service, rather than a leading, role. Sorry, you're very astute, but not entirely right in this case. All those things play into it, but a fair sized portion of the threat resides on a battlefield that no LE agency can handle, and no pure diplomacy will resolve. If there can be no political solution, then you're claiming that perpetual warfare is unavoidable. It's a small minded I idea that I don't subscribe to. We're Americans; we're supposed to be good at figuring shit out, and I believe we can eventually...if we walk our talk. So far, we haven't. Edited March 17, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote
billcoe Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 It seems to me that trust is a big part of being a citizen. For instance, we should be trusting that the Pentagon is war gaming how to get the most bang for the buck internationally from our military and diplomacy. By that I mean how do we maximize our safety while minimizing the expense? The Pentagon hires 27,000 people to work on Public Relations that various issues, like Guantanamo, causes. 27,000. and they have a budget as well. Good PR isn't cheap. To say nothing of what happens if an insurgency develops in some remote country that is anti-US based on these kinds of issues. Furthermore, I agree with Mike above that changing what happens is the more important component of the equations, more so than closing a particular place, however, Gitmo is a polarizing issue now, so that cat is out of the bag. Frankly, I would not want to not have the tools that seem to be so routinely utilized there, available. If, like an OAK tree, the US were to stand firm, it is a matter of time until the rest of the world pulls the "international law" card and force us to pull it off the table. Be better to have that card(s) up the sleeve for an emergency than not. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 I'm not sure I understand from this post who should hold which card up their sleeve, nor what that card is. Quote
billcoe Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) I'm not sure I understand from this post who should hold which card up their sleeve, nor what that card is. You're not going all Kevbone on me now are you:-) ? pssst: it's the weasel card. Edited March 17, 2009 by billcoe Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) I'm not sure I understand from this post who should hold which card up their sleeve, nor what that card is. You're not going all Kevbone on me now are you:-) ? pssst: it's the weasel card. That doesn't exactly make your point any clearer. Edited March 18, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote
akhalteke Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Fighting terrorism with the military is the poorest idea of all, though. When it comes to terrorism, the military is our crudest and least effective weapon. Our values, diplomacy, economy, strategic relationships, international alliances, and law enforcement together are the only effective frontlines against terrorism. Any time we have to deploy our military against terrorists we have essentially failed and are being forced to use our solution of last resort. The military has a role to play in an integrated whole, but it should be in a service, rather than a leading, role. Sorry, you're very astute, but not entirely right in this case. All those things play into it, but a fair sized portion of the threat resides on a battlefield that no LE agency can handle, and no pure diplomacy will resolve. JH is right and Serenity is flat out wrong. Your abs must be ripped! Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 The only guys I know that care about how ripped another guy's abs also care about how willing their ass is. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Quote
ivan Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 secret military detention facilities are futher evidence that, if god exists (and especially if he made us in his image), he sure is a flaming asshole Quote
Fairweather Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Sting sums this thread up well: There is no political solution To our troubled evolution Have no faith in constitution There is no bloody revolution We are spirits in the material world Are spirits in the material world Our so-called leaders speak With words they try to jail you They subjugate the meek But it's the rhetoric of failure We are spirits in the material world Are spirits in the material world Where does the answer lie? Living from day to day If it's something we can't buy There must be another way We are spirits in the material world Are spirits in the material world Quote
mattp Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 It seems to me that trust is a big part of being a citizen. For instance, we should be trusting that the Pentagon is war gaming how to get the most bang for the buck internationally from our military and diplomacy. By that I mean how do we maximize our safety while minimizing the expense? Bill... you're kidding, right? Think of any weapons upgrade, whether it is the B-1 bomber or the latest generation fighters, or the pathetic trucks we sent to Iraq in which our troops had to put sandbags on the floor or weld scrap metal onto. We should trust the pentagon procurement office to make good choices? I agree with part of your premise, and I stated this point the other night in response to one of Serenity's posts: we DO have to have some measure of trust or respect or appreciation and at some level we cannot second-guess everything. At least not on an operational level. But when we are talking about procurement? (Let alone policy) The larger point remains: at the fundamental levels we can and should second guess pretty much everything. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 The major military decisions and expenditures are decided and pushed by politicians who want pork for their districts, and by presidents who want to secure a dynasty for their party by pandering to an ever-popular form of national paranoia. These people are absolutely never to be trusted, and should have an arthroscope up their ass at all times. They spend our money not based on effiency or mission, but based on political pressure. Practicality and efficiency is not their strong suit. Quote
Serenity Posted March 18, 2009 Author Posted March 18, 2009 Fighting terrorism with the military is the poorest idea of all, though. When it comes to terrorism, the military is our crudest and least effective weapon. Our values, diplomacy, economy, strategic relationships, international alliances, and law enforcement together are the only effective frontlines against terrorism. Any time we have to deploy our military against terrorists we have essentially failed and are being forced to use our solution of last resort. The military has a role to play in an integrated whole, but it should be in a service, rather than a leading, role. Sorry, you're very astute, but not entirely right in this case. All those things play into it, but a fair sized portion of the threat resides on a battlefield that no LE agency can handle, and no pure diplomacy will resolve. JH is right and Serenity is flat out wrong. Kevbone, as usual your perspective and opinion from the mean streets of Portland is about as fucking worthless as you are. Quote
Serenity Posted March 18, 2009 Author Posted March 18, 2009 The major military decisions and expenditures are decided and pushed by politicians who want pork for their districts, and by presidents who want to secure a dynasty for their party by pandering to an ever-popular form of national paranoia. These people are absolutely never to be trusted, and should have an arthroscope up their ass at all times. They spend our money not based on effiency or mission, but based on political pressure. Practicality and efficiency is not their strong suit. You have once gain displayed your penchant for conspiracy paranoia all the while decrying paranoia. Quote
Serenity Posted March 18, 2009 Author Posted March 18, 2009 Are you fucking kidding? You can't piss out a forest fire homes. Your shitty diplomacy, fucked up economy and your lack of law enforcement (crippled by liberals) is the reason that there is a forest fire. Better drink up bud. Shitty law enforcement? We've got 2.2 million people in prison right now, by far the highest incarceration rate in the world. What universe do you hail from? Joseph's post is spot on. No, it's not. However I will point out once again that from you sterilized environment it probably seems to be. This post started as a troll, and remains as equally useless despite all your attempts to argue otherwise. With your super secret squirrel clandestine background you allude to (bullshit), why don't you get yourself in the game for a few years and open your mind. Oh, I forgot...you're too busy being 'brave' from the rear with the gear. Quote
ivan Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 you're too busy being 'brave' from the rear with the gear. which i imagine puts you w/ the cunts in the front, eh? Quote
ivan Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Step up bitch. dude, there's too much gear in the way! but thanks for including me in the select "i've been pm'ed by a pissed off prissy bitch" club though! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.