Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Same non-answer that I got from him.

It's pretty easy actually. Look at each military action, look at what was our "interest of national security" before intervention, see if we are still facing a security risk after that intervention. If the military action left us safer after intervention then you have your answer. If we continue to face threats from each area where we intervened, then our intervention are obviously not working and are a waste of money and lives (ours and innocent bystanders).

Okay... so, what's the litmus test to intervene, if at all?

Let me ask you this then... from a macro view:
1) Did our intervention in Iraq/Afganistan make us "safer" in the sense that we're fighting over there rather than here?

2) If we had not invaded Iraq/Afganistan... and we took the licking, is it that far-fetch that we may be attacked again?

Step 1 would be realizing that Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with each other and should not be compared together.

1) Stupid question, because "fighting over there" assumes that after we leave the fight is over. If we leave and the father of the kids killed by a drone strike at the BBQ travels to the US and sets off a bomb over here, then "fighting over there" didn't really do anything.

2) Are we leaving a safer and more stable Iraq than what we found?

Just name off 3-5 military actions since WW2 that resulted in a net-increase to our national safety. Shouldn't be too hard.

Don't ask how much a sheep cost the US gov't if we're the ones that killed it.

 Jihadin wrote:
Don't ask how much a sheep cost the US gov't if we're the ones that killed it.

They're rather protective of sheeps?

Must be some serious haggling there...

Alright here's something very few people know. There's bounty on "enemy" weapons that are turned into the Coalition forces. From personnel weapons to heavy artillery....even tanks. Yes we paid a guy off for turning in a working (no lie) a M4 Sherman tank. It was part of a house. We even pay for locations of mines and upon confirmation there's a mine there the guy gets paid. Only one type of mine is not paid for. Its a freaking play doo mine. We don't want anyone handling this sucker since pressure sets off the chemical ignition. Russia built them to last. We clear out the area and let the engineers and EoD handle it. Even the insurgents won't mess with it and avoid engaging the Coalition forces while clearing it (its a clear area they now can use later on). As for the sheep if its confirmed we killed it. One male sheep cost over eleven thousand dollars. I should know because I'm the one that shot a shep in an engagement to get a clear aim at an insurgent. Think I went OT a bit here.

I could imagine that in some parts of the world blowing up lifestock would equal blowing up cold-hard cash over here.

Also a way to clear out people from an area. Insurgents will kill the live stock. No food people will move on.

 Jihadin wrote:
Also a way to clear out people from an area. Insurgents will kill the live stock. No food people will move on.

Wow... thanks... informative. I've been following Michael Yon's dispatches, especially regarding the MEDEVAC issues...

Those animals are wealth in many parts of the country, they produce food, supplies, and I can imagine that they are often the main source of income for families. Killing the animals would be the equivalent of firing somebody over here while burning their fields and wiping out their bank account.

A lot different than our lives.

You just don't know how different. Females are considered "property" there

whembly wrote:For what's it's worth, I think we should get out and withdraw all of our forces with few strategic bases and just keep the Carrier Groups (policing the shipping lanes). Then, if there's another attack somewhere on our interests, then we go balls-to-the-wall MOAB on the bad guys, instead of a few dinky drone strikes.

Do you know what the best way to combat a superior fighting force is? Guerilla tactics. Hiding amongst innocent civilians is the most obvious and direct counter to cowboys riding bombs. And guess what? That's exactly what's happening, and why the US cannot just carpet-bomb a nation.

whembly wrote:Let me ask you this then... from a macro view:
1) Did our intervention in Iraq/Afganistan make us "safer" in the sense that we're fighting over there rather than here?

2) If we had not invaded Iraq/Afganistan... and we took the licking, is it that far-fetch that we may be attacked again?

McCarthyism much?

Jihadin wrote:As for the sheep if its confirmed we killed it. One male sheep cost over eleven thousand dollars. I should know because I'm the one that shot a shep in an engagement to get a clear aim at an insurgent. Think I went OT a bit here.

Huh. I figured you meant the symbolic cost, as it would strain relations with local villagers and informants if you kill their livestock and destroy their food supply. My understanding of the "human" element to this dynamic was based largely on a documentary I saw a few years back called Restrepo, which I thought showed the importance of that dynamic. I did not think you literally were talking about the monetary cost of a sheep.

 whembly wrote:
1) Did our intervention in Iraq/Afganistan make us "safer" in the sense that we're fighting over there rather than here?

No, because most of the fighting over there is only possible because we put our troops within their reach. Meanwhile various plots have been stopped with police work within the US, not by driving around randomly in Afghanistan waiting for a bomb to go off. It's quite plausible that there would have been no impact on the amount of fighting "here", while completely avoiding the fighting "there" if we hadn't invaded. In fact, given the amount of money we could have taken from the war budget and put into domestic police work against potential terrorists and the number of terrorists we create through collateral damage, I think it's plausible to say that there would be MUCH less fighting if we hadn't invaded.

2) If we had not invaded Iraq/Afganistan... and we took the licking, is it that far-fetch that we may be attacked again?

First of all, Iraq has nothing to do with it. The people who attacked us weren't there, and Iraq had little or no ability to harm us and there was no reasonable belief that they had any motivation to try. Iraq was a horrible combination of oil, finishing dad's war, and a crusade to spread democracy and/or Jesus without actually understanding the local politics. The only contribution to our security was that we spent an obscene amount of money on the war and occupation instead of on security measures that might have been useful.

Second, who says the options are "occupy the country for a decade" and "do nothing"? After all, we killed the person responsible for the attacks with an isolated strike, not an invasion. So where's the middle ground where we go in, kill the people responsible, and return control of the country to its citizens as soon as possible? Preferably combined with our troops acting as a liberating army, not a conquering one.





But anyway, isn't this kind of off-topic? Shouldn't we get back to discussing Mitt Romney's failure to do his patriotic duty and eat at least one baby a day? I really can't see how any god-fearing American can stand the thought of voting for this spineless non-baby-eater when Obama has a proven record of baby eating and has even published the white house fried baby recipe so the rest of us can join in the ritual consumption of the innocent. Meanwhile the soviets continue to deploy new and improved weapons of mass baby eating! We can not let this stand!

VOTE FOR OBAMA IN 2012! WE CAN NOT AFFORD A BABY EATING GAP!

I hope they raise the baby eating ceiling, we cannot default on delicious babies.

We pay for the live stock we kill. US pay for the price of the sheep and future offsprings the male sheep wouold have had with the amount of females avaible at that time.

Which is a good thing, but still obviously not as good as if there were a way to avoid killing them in the first place.

And of course, we can't pay to replace people's dead family members.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Which is a good thing, but still obviously not as good as if there were a way to avoid killing them in the first place.

And of course, we can't pay to replace people's dead family members.

So you're saying, what, that we can't have our live babies and eat them too?

The best babies are free range babies.

Beer battered and deep fried!

WITH FRIES....I add malt vineger on mine...then ketchup by them...

Or in baby sushi. Om nom nom.

 Jihadin wrote:
WITH FRIES....I add malt vineger on mine...then ketchup by them...

Gross. Ketchup.

OMG D...not even on burgers?

Not usually. It's too sweet. Some cheddar and onion is always good though. Maybe some extra spicy barbecue sauce, but that's about it.

Note that I'm totally down with the malt vinegar though.

I want my baby back ribs.

Its

I want my baby baby babbyy back ribs

Ketcup is for fries, mustard and miracle whip is for burgers, bar-b-que sauce is for babies...


Wait. What the hell are we talking about again?

Motorcycle repair I think. Maybe Zen Buddhism too.

 Jihadin wrote:
Its

I want my baby baby babbyy back ribs

A bit NSFW for language...