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.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Spoiler:

scarletsquig wrote:I'm no expert on religion, but I'm fairly certain that "kill lots of people and make lots of money for a tiny minority at the expense of everyone else" isn't quite what they'd ideally like our politicians to be doing right now.

I'd just like to point out that your statement in quotations is basically a summation of the GOP's platform, which has been custom-tailored for the Christian fundamentalists.

whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
The bit that gets me angry is the "refusing to apologize for America abroad".

Doesn't he think that the 1000s of innocent victims in Vietnam deserved at least a "sorry"? And how about the victims of American bombing in Afghanistan? Or the victims of the mess that was Grenada?

Um... wat?

So, what does the world want from us?

I don't think the world is a homogeneous whole... Most likely individuals or nations that america tramples on in the many myriad ways that America likes to trample on individuals and nations probably want an apology. I'm sure there's some kid in Pakistan that wants his leg back or something.

Either way I disagree with the title of this thread. I'm not sure Romney wouldn't eat a baby.

erm... so, if we apologize, then what? I feel like we'd never stop apologizing... *shrugs* we ain't perfect ya know...

Your attitude perfectly serves as an example of both how and why terrorists are created.

So... you're saying that 9/11 was our fault... gotcha.

So... we have the powah to create Terrorist? Really? Um, mean people sucks... you know that right? Terrorist are derived from ideology, not necessarily from our foreign policy... here's a good summary:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/do-americas-policies-create-terrorists/?singlepage=true


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
The bit that gets me angry is the "refusing to apologize for America abroad".

Doesn't he think that the 1000s of innocent victims in Vietnam deserved at least a "sorry"? And how about the victims of American bombing in Afghanistan? Or the victims of the mess that was Grenada?

Um... wat?

So, what does the world want from us?

Blood?

We've given plenty... the Blood God would be appeased I'd say!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I do understand this sentiment... but, our national compassion doesn't get alot of attention and I blame the "if it bleeds, lead with it" mentality.

And if we start apologizing, it'll never end. (unless we go full blown isolationist)

But, what you're not taking to account is the diplomatic "brinkmenship" that occurs between nations and the President is the figurehead for the US and I think (among others) it would be inappropriate for the President to go on an apology tour.

Look... this really isn't a Republican or Democat thing... its diplomacy and war.

OT: Have you read Ender's Game?

The American idealism isn't viewed the same way in other nations. Our lack of visible spoken outreach and compassion is a strong contributor to, for example, the average pakistani belief that the United States is planning to swoop in and "take their nukes" at any time. Our wars these days are wars of idealism, our pride recruits our enemies. I disagree that the apologies would "never end", there is no precedent for that. Major incidents like Abu Ghraib or careless drone strikes in pakistan do incredible damage to our own interests when we defend our choices for our pride. We are actively hurting ourselves, and beyond even statesmanship we're doing wrong and brushing it under the rug. That is wrong.

I just want to understand something... you want the Prez to say "I'm sorry" everytime this happens?

The diplomacy of war doesn't make sense when we're not at war with the countries we're bombing. We weren't at war with the thousands of innocents eventually released from Afghanistan prisons we're not at war with Pakistan.

And that's the issue... we ARE at war... else, why the drones/SEAL attacks? This is not a police action.

No, I have not read Enders game.

You should check it out... Its a Science Fiction war novel. (soon to be made in a movie)

I still think it's required reading for the US Marines (can someone confirm?).

It really explores the concept of who/what you want in the planning/execution for any military exercise.

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Spoiler:

scarletsquig wrote:I'm no expert on religion, but I'm fairly certain that "kill lots of people and make lots of money for a tiny minority at the expense of everyone else" isn't quite what they'd ideally like our politicians to be doing right now.

I'd just like to point out that your statement in quotations is basically a summation of the GOP's platform, which has been custom-tailored for the Christian fundamentalists.

whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
The bit that gets me angry is the "refusing to apologize for America abroad".

Doesn't he think that the 1000s of innocent victims in Vietnam deserved at least a "sorry"? And how about the victims of American bombing in Afghanistan? Or the victims of the mess that was Grenada?

Um... wat?

So, what does the world want from us?

I don't think the world is a homogeneous whole... Most likely individuals or nations that america tramples on in the many myriad ways that America likes to trample on individuals and nations probably want an apology. I'm sure there's some kid in Pakistan that wants his leg back or something.

Either way I disagree with the title of this thread. I'm not sure Romney wouldn't eat a baby.

erm... so, if we apologize, then what? I feel like we'd never stop apologizing... *shrugs* we ain't perfect ya know...

Your attitude perfectly serves as an example of both how and why terrorists are created.

So... you're saying that 9/11 was our fault... gotcha.

So... we have the powah to create Terrorist? Really? Um, mean people sucks... you know that right? Terrorist are derived from ideology, not necessarily from our foreign policy... here's a good summary:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/do-americas-policies-create-terrorists/?singlepage=true

.

Read Noam Chomsky's Failed States, the US effectively created Osama Bin Laden and then changed him from ally to enemy

So... you're saying that 9/11 was our fault... gotcha.

So... we have the powah to create Terrorist? Really? Um, mean people sucks... you know that right? Terrorist are derived from ideology, not necessarily from our foreign policy... here's a good summary:

There's a strong argument that the American foreign militarization during the cold war and post encouraged the rise of anti western religious militancy while our brinksmanship against the soviet union developed weak states unable to police their restive populations or oppressive states that could but which linked America to totalitarian regimes. Almost nothing we did for 30 solid years did anything but paint a target on us and aided in the development of hardline militaristic populations.

That link is pretty awful..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I just want to understand something... you want the Prez to say "I'm sorry" everytime this happens?

Abu Ghraib happened all of once. Yes, I do. What I would really like is for American foreign policy to value civilian life more. When we feth up bad someone should speak up. Otherwise people will begin to think that America doesn't stand for anything at all.

And that's the issue... we ARE at war... else, why the drones/SEAL attacks? This is not a police action.

Not with Pakistan. We're attacking people who hide in civilian populations. We are killing those populations to kill our enemies. This isn't a war, this isn't anything but an extension of American military capability without a cohesive or functioning end game plan. What I think we should do as an alternative, or if I think we should stop are different discussions. It's a gakky situation, but we've killed a lot of innocent people. Our silence is damning and served to make us unto what our enemies claim us to be.

You should check it out... Its a Science Fiction war novel. (soon to be made in a movie)

I still think it's required reading for the US Marines (can someone confirm?).

It really explores the concept of who/what you want in the planning/execution for any military exercise.

I don't strongly value external philosophical stimulus in forming my opinions. I believe that the logic and morality of these situations inform themselves without the aid of fiction. I have heard it was good though.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
No, I have not read Enders game.

You should, its an excellent book.

One of the concepts of the book is this.

Ender was getting picked on by school bullies. He knew that he would be picked on continually unless he gave them a reason to be scared of him. So when a bully hit him, Ender turned on him and beat him into submission -- to the point where the boy was hospitalized. He knew that by giving that boy extra punishment, no other bullies would dare touch him.

Furthermore, the overall pain delivered to bullies would be less. While this bully took more punishment "for the team" the overall pain suffered by bullies in the school would be less.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
No, I have not read Enders game.

You should, its an excellent book.

One of the concepts of the book is this.

Ender was getting picked on by school bullies. He knew that he would be picked on continually unless he gave them a reason to be scared of him. So when a bully hit him, Ender turned on him and beat him into submission -- to the point where the boy was hospitalized. He knew that by giving that boy extra punishment, no other bullies would dare touch him.

Furthermore, the overall pain delivered to bullies would be less. While this bully took more punishment "for the team" the overall pain suffered by bullies in the school would be less.

I'm sure Al-Queda read that too. Certainly does sound like what they did in 9/11. They've even rationalized it that way in interviews. The concepts of retribution and potential threat are nice, but taking political ideas from fiction is dangerous.

Note that I'm not talking down about the book, I haven't read it and I do hear it's quite good!

Al-Queda made the same mistake that the Japanese did in WW2.
To quote Yamamoto. "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

As bad as it was, the 9/11 was not putting us in the hospital. It was a kick in the shin.
If they had nuked 4 major cities on each coast, that would have crippled us.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Al-Queda made the same mistake that the Japanese did in WW2.

To quote Yamamoto. "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Yet Al-Qaeda had home field advantage and the ability to fight Guerilla style (Just like 'Nam)

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Spoiler:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
No, I have not read Enders game.

You should, its an excellent book.

One of the concepts of the book is this.

Ender was getting picked on by school bullies. He knew that he would be picked on continually unless he gave them a reason to be scared of him. So when a bully hit him, Ender turned on him and beat him into submission -- to the point where the boy was hospitalized. He knew that by giving that boy extra punishment, no other bullies would dare touch him.

Furthermore, the overall pain delivered to bullies would be less. While this bully took more punishment "for the team" the overall pain suffered by bullies in the school would be less.

I'm sure Al-Queda read that too. Certainly does sound like what they did in 9/11. They've even rationalized it that way in interviews. The concepts of retribution and potential threat are nice, but taking political ideas from fiction is dangerous.

Note that I'm not talking down about the book, I haven't read it and I do hear it's quite good!

Do read it...

Another salient point is that Enders is a brilliant warrior. Not only was he SMART... but, he really didn't have much EMPATHY.
TL;DR: you want a mother-fething sociopath to lead your war aspirations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Al-Queda made the same mistake that the Japanese did in WW2.

To quote Yamamoto. "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Yet Al-Qaeda had home field advantage and the ability to fight Guerilla style (Just like 'Nam)

And so? You saying they're they have the same organizational strength prior to the war?

@Shuma: I get what you saying at least with respect to Abu-Garib and the Drone attacks on innocents... my point was, even if a prime-time apology was done by the President, it won't satisfy the distractors.

Ender's game has quite a few really cool concepts throughout it. Science fiction books written during that time period has many great concepts within.

Sadly, most of them I can't really describe in detail without spoiling the story. Thats why its best to read it.

Oh dear. What have I started?

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Read Noam Chomsky's Failed States, the US effectively created Osama Bin Laden and then changed him from ally to enemy

I read his book...

Totally disagree with his premise.

Ron Paul and Hugo Chavez touts his works... not going there dude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Oh dear. What have I started?

Bloodletting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Ender's game has quite a few really cool concepts throughout it. Science fiction books written during that time period has many great concepts within.

Sadly, most of them I can't really describe in detail without spoiling the story. Thats why its best to read it.

Yes... I'll shutup from here... and don't WIKI it!

Not too sure how it'll translate to the movie screen though? Lot's of inner narrative dialogue ala Twilight?

So, we have hyper masculinity power worship, subtle racism, and talks of biccat who better come back so he can buy me a $50 GW box when Obama beats Romney in November.

Good times, Dakka, good times.

 whembly wrote:

Sure... through normal diplomatic channels.

Not from a sitting President though... just my opinion.

What a sitting President says is part of "normal diplomatic channels".

 whembly wrote:

@Shuma: I get what you saying at least with respect to Abu-Garib and the Drone attacks on innocents... my point was, even if a prime-time apology was done by the President, it won't satisfy the distractors.

Of course not, because the detractors probably aren't speaking from grievance. But apologizing costs nothing, and it does weaken their argumentative position without materially affecting that of the US.

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Spoiler:

scarletsquig wrote:I'm no expert on religion, but I'm fairly certain that "kill lots of people and make lots of money for a tiny minority at the expense of everyone else" isn't quite what they'd ideally like our politicians to be doing right now.

I'd just like to point out that your statement in quotations is basically a summation of the GOP's platform, which has been custom-tailored for the Christian fundamentalists.

whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
The bit that gets me angry is the "refusing to apologize for America abroad".

Doesn't he think that the 1000s of innocent victims in Vietnam deserved at least a "sorry"? And how about the victims of American bombing in Afghanistan? Or the victims of the mess that was Grenada?

Um... wat?

So, what does the world want from us?

I don't think the world is a homogeneous whole... Most likely individuals or nations that america tramples on in the many myriad ways that America likes to trample on individuals and nations probably want an apology. I'm sure there's some kid in Pakistan that wants his leg back or something.

Either way I disagree with the title of this thread. I'm not sure Romney wouldn't eat a baby.

erm... so, if we apologize, then what? I feel like we'd never stop apologizing... *shrugs* we ain't perfect ya know...

Your attitude perfectly serves as an example of both how and why terrorists are created.

So... you're saying that 9/11 was our fault... gotcha.

So... we have the powah to create Terrorist? Really? Um, mean people sucks... you know that right? Terrorist are derived from ideology, not necessarily from our foreign policy... here's a good summary:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/do-americas-policies-create-terrorists/?singlepage=true

Whembly, you are a fool. I'm not saying this as an insult, just merely as a statement of fact. Awareness is the first step towards change and growth, and I would honestly like to see your paradigms evolve here. This is a non-political statement, and your right-wing beliefs do not factor into this; nor do my left wing beliefs.

"the terrorists hate us because we have freedom" is an assinine belief. If you have kids, I want you to think about a scenario:

You're hanging out in your back yard, having a BBQ and enjoying the summer weather wiht your family. Then, your children explode as a drone flies overhead. Once the shock fades away, you learn that your children were collateral damage, which is unfortunate. The person that ordered the drone strike, however, has no regrets about accidently vaporizing your children, because blah blah blah who the hell cares, you're not listening because you'd have already turned into a living mechanism of hate by now, Hell-bent on reciprocating that pain and loss.

I won't say that there are no religious zealots who become terrorists, because there obviously are. The Taliban is an excellent example of such. But the situation is a lot more complex than what can be reduced to sound bites and catch phrases for you, and as such I am not surprised to see that your understanding of the subject is as shallow as it can possibly be.

The 9/11 attacks were the fault of a very small group of people, all of whom were terrorists. I honestly have pity for you, that your desire to strawman is so strong that you would imply I made such a stupid claim as to blame the victims of those attacks. However, this does not change the fact that the US definitely does have the power to create terrorists; a feat which could reasonably be undone through reparations and apologies.

The 9/11 attacks were the fault of a very small group of people, all of whom were terrorists.

Al-Qaeda was and is by no means a small organization, nor is it one without a sizeable support, funding, and supply structure that is supported by many who are not terrorists. The 9/11 attacks involved hundreds directly and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, indirectly.

Not saying Whembley isn't strawmanning, he does that a lot. Understating the size and power of Al-Qaeda isn't helpful either.

Cool down, folks - if you're throwing around personal remarks directed at another poster, rather than discussing their argument, you're getting too worked up.

 whembly wrote:
Totally disagree with his premise.

Which premise?

I have read a number of Chomsky's books, and I am curious as to which premise you disagree with, and why. Is it the one that states the second Iraq War was to establish control over middle east oil?

What about his other theories like his media model? I find that a very interesting read.

 whembly wrote:
Ron Paul and Hugo Chavez touts his works... not going there dude

I don't get your meaning here. Are you saying because Paul and Chavez like Chomsky its invalid, or that its funny how both Paul and Chavez can appreciate Chomsky -- when they are about as different politically as two humans can be.

 whembly wrote:
Not too sure how it'll translate to the movie screen though? Lot's of inner narrative dialogue ala Twilight?

I've read excepts of Card talking about Ender's game being made into a movie. It won't ever happen until people are willing at accept that an 11 year old can do those things. One of the points was that what happened would only happen with an 11 year old -- not a 16 year old. Movie studios don't want to cast a kid in that role, and Card won't let the story be shifted to a 16 year old Ender.

ShumaGorath wrote:

The 9/11 attacks were the fault of a very small group of people, all of whom were terrorists.

Al-Qaeda was and is by no means a small organization, nor is it one without a sizeable support, funding, and supply structure that is supported by many who are not terrorists. The 9/11 attacks involved hundreds directly and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, indirectly.

Not saying Whembley isn't strawmanning, he does that a lot. Understating the size and power of Al-Qaeda isn't helpful either.

I'd call it a small group within the context that we're spekaing of, where hundreds of people is miniscule. Perhaps I should have been more precise, however. And I can't hold indirect support accountable for that, because that forces the issue of asking how many degrees removed someone has to be until they are not accountable.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

The 9/11 attacks were the fault of a very small group of people, all of whom were terrorists.

Al-Qaeda was and is by no means a small organization, nor is it one without a sizeable support, funding, and supply structure that is supported by many who are not terrorists. The 9/11 attacks involved hundreds directly and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, indirectly.

Not saying Whembley isn't strawmanning, he does that a lot. Understating the size and power of Al-Qaeda isn't helpful either.

Why Al-Qaeda attacked us is actually quite a complex story. Its not a group of people that got up one day and decided to attack America because they hated it.

This is a very interesting BBC documentary that describes the origins of Al-Qaeda and the Neoconservative US party, and how they worked together in the 80s in Afghanistan to cause the collapse of the Russian empire. It then talks about how they diverged in the 90s and then what drove Al-Qaeda to attack us. It gives a lot of insight to both groups.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWlWQ

Whembly, you are a fool. I'm not saying this as an insult, just merely as a statement of fact. Awareness is the first step towards change and growth, and I would honestly like to see your paradigms evolve here. This is a non-political statement, and your right-wing beliefs do not factor into this; nor do my left wing beliefs.

"the terrorists hate us because we have freedom" is an assinine belief. If you have kids, I want you to think about a scenario:

You're hanging out in your back yard, having a BBQ and enjoying the summer weather wiht your family. Then, your children explode as a drone flies overhead. Once the shock fades away, you learn that your children were collateral damage, which is unfortunate. The person that ordered the drone strike, however, has no regrets about accidently vaporizing your children, because blah blah blah who the hell cares, you're not listening because you'd have already turned into a living mechanism of hate by now, Hell-bent on reciprocating that pain and loss.

I won't say that there are no religious zealots who become terrorists, because there obviously are. The Taliban is an excellent example of such. But the situation is a lot more complex than what can be reduced to sound bites and catch phrases for you, and as such I am not surprised to see that your understanding of the subject is as shallow as it can possibly be.

The 9/11 attacks were the fault of a very small group of people, all of whom were terrorists. I honestly have pity for you, that your desire to strawman is so strong that you would imply I made such a stupid claim as to blame the victims of those attacks. However, this does not change the fact that the US definitely does have the power to create terrorists; a feat which could reasonably be undone through reparations and apologies.

Damn... walked into the Az landmine here...

I'm going to say it agan, but this time with feelings: This is war. It's ugly, no ifs and buts about it...

So, I think the issue the you have with this is our "tactics" with the ongoing war...

Also what I quoted above again with your scenario... yes, that's horrid. But. Its. War.

Would you rather that we carpet bomb them? Or, god forbid, invade?

Whatever the US does... damned of we do, damned if we don't... and if we "don't"... we get 9/11, cole bombing, WTC bombing, embassy bombing, need I say more?

For the record, I don't abide by "the terrorist hates our freedom"... since we're the biggest mofo on the planet now, we are a convienent excuse for the extremist to justify their actions. If we weren't the biggest mofo, the extremist will STILL FIND SOMETHING to justify their actions.

Bad folks will be bad...

And... we are NOT perfect .

 whembly wrote:
Whatever the US does... damned of we do, damned if we don't... and if we "don't"... we get 9/11, cole bombing, WTC bombing, embassy bombing, need I say more?

Its not that easy. Why the Islamic fundamentalist group Al-Queda is attacking America is not because of one thing. Its not a 'damned if you do' or 'damned if you don't' thing. Again I reccomend that BBC documentry for a background on Al-Queda. Its 3 hours long, but very intersting. Its also very non-partasin. You will find some pretty big hits on both US parties.

Lets take that example of the parent who children became collaratal damage. Forgive my bluntless, but who gives a rat's ass if someone on the other side of the world hates the US if all they can do is wave a stick in the air. The problem is when we buy oil from Saudia Arabia -- who them gives that stick waving man a bomb and a plane ticket.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Totally disagree with his premise.

Which premise?

Something like the US is becoming a “failed state"... in that no one is longer able to guarantee the safety of its citizens or honor the electoral sentiments they express through the channels of democratic government.

That's the premise I disagree with from his recent book (Failed State?).

I have read a number of Chomsky's books, and I am curious as to which premise you disagree with, and why. Is it the one that states the second Iraq War was to establish control over middle east oil?

His argument here did make sense, but he's pushed that as the primary reason why... which, I find is debatable.

What about his other theories like his media model? I find that a very interesting read.

Yeah, that was interesting... I'll say this, his works as an MIT linguistic dude really shows in his works.

 whembly wrote:
Ron Paul and Hugo Chavez touts his works... not going there dude

I don't get your meaning here. Are you saying because Paul and Chavez like Chomsky its invalid, or that its funny how both Paul and Chavez can appreciate Chomsky -- when they are about as different politically as two humans can be.

More like it's "funny" that both can appreciate Chomsky... it's a "double-take" moment, know what I mean?

Spoiler this dude!

One of my friends kept talking about "we have to do these things for national security" when I asked him about all our military actions.

I asked him to list all our military actions and tell me which of them resulted in more safety for the US and didn't result in another threat for the US.

Still waiting on an answer from him.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
No, I have not read Enders game.

Ender was getting picked on by school bullies. He knew that he would be picked on continually unless he gave them a reason to be scared of him. So when a bully hit him, Ender turned on him and beat him into submission -- to the point where the boy was hospitalized. He knew that by giving that boy extra punishment, no other bullies would dare touch him.

Furthermore, the overall pain delivered to bullies would be less. While this bully took more punishment "for the team" the overall pain suffered by bullies in the school would be less.

Not to single anyone out, but I don't think you've quite encompassed the point of what happened in the book.



Going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was necessary, and part of the consequence of that was always going to be deaths, even of innocents. But that should be recognized as the tragedy it is, and we shouldn't let ourselves off the hook by pretending that all the times we've caused unnecessary suffering and death since then weren't our fault, were purely necessary, or were somehow reducing future pain. We've had some really awful stuff done by our guys, like at Bagram. And more recently, journalists and other innocent civilians getting killed in drone strikes.

When our guys do something awful in error, or so something criminal, we do need to take responsiblity for that. And sometimes that's going to involve an apology and/or reparations of some kind.

Of course, this whole discussion started off talking about Mitt Romney criticizing the President for things that never happened, like an "apology tour". Obama did go on an international tour after he was elected, but it certainly wasn't to apologize for anything. It was more an attempt to reestablish some more positive relations and regard for us, from our allies and other more neutral nations. And he still criticized them as much and as often as he acknowledged that America has made some mistakes and been arrogant at times. He did some good repair work in a very short time on that trip, encouraging a lot of people to consider us favorably again, and not write as off as as the kind of arrogant imperialists who would never apologize for the deaths of innocents.

Or who would rationalize them away even clear wrongdoing or unnecessary deaths, as causing less pain in the long run.

Some of what we've done has been necessary. And some questions and quandaries have no easy right answers. Afghanistan has been in a horrible state for a long time, and to NOT do any nation building there would be to turn our backs on the people and society who suffered a great deal under the Taliban, and before that. And more pragmatically, to leave it completely unstable and resentful toward us would just be to let it turn into another hostile nation giving willing shelter to terrorist training camps again. On the other hand, a lot of folks justifiably argue that it's a country that no country or empire has ever managed to pacify and bring order to in the long run. So prolonging our effort there is to some extent throwing more innocent lives and money into a possibly neverending pit of waste and death. There's only so much we can agonize over that on a day to day basis. Whichever way we go, there will be suffering, and we're in part responsible for it. But we can't (or shouldn't) use that as an excuse to rationalize away our mistakes and crimes, and act as if we couldn't do better, aren't responsible for the casualies, and should never apologize for anything.

 d-usa wrote:
One of my friends kept talking about "we have to do these things for national security" when I asked him about all our military actions.

I asked him to list all our military actions and tell me which of them resulted in more safety for the US and didn't result in another threat for the US.

Still waiting on an answer from him.

Um... how would we know if what we've done made things worse or better?

Have you sat in Obama's, Bush's, Clinton's, Daddy Bush's chair with all the facts?

And interestingly, Obama is the one who championed the drone strikes... as much as I dislike the guy, I sincerely believes he has America's best interest when making these calls as he'll have all the pertinent information he'll need to make these decisions. He's not willynilly pushing for these drone strikes...

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.

Someone be screaming for US involvment somewhere down the line.

 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.

Yeah, why use precision weapons when you can just blow up everyone who was guilty of the horrible crime of being within MOAB blast radius of someone who might have done something to hurt us? Why bother with the complexities of dealing with nations where oppressive rulers and the average person don't share the same ideology when you can just kill everyone and let god sort it out? Why worry about the problem of collateral damage turning neutral people into dedicated enemies when you can just drop a bomb on them too!

Really, the only question here is whether you're typing this one-handed with a page of weapon stats open in the adjacent window...

Manny... I applaud you for this... you've articulated that better than I ever could .

On the ground, the military tries to make reparations from lost lives to shattered homes to crops being blowned up... (although, I'm at lost if this is happening in Pakistan). There's a Journalist who retired from the service is doing great reporting called Michael Yon (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/) who reports this. (Hey Jihadin, does that happen in your experience?)

So, I guess what I'm asking... what should we be doing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Yeah, why use precision weapons when you can just blow up everyone who was guilty of the horrible crime of being within MOAB blast radius of someone who might have done something to hurt us? Why bother with the complexities of dealing with nations where oppressive rulers and the average person don't share the same ideology when you can just kill everyone and let god sort it out? Why worry about the problem of collateral damage turning neutral people into dedicated enemies when you can just drop a bomb on them too!

Really, the only question here is whether you're typing this one-handed with a page of weapon stats open in the adjacent window...

I was being snarky with that last ine...

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
One of my friends kept talking about "we have to do these things for national security" when I asked him about all our military actions.

I asked him to list all our military actions and tell me which of them resulted in more safety for the US and didn't result in another threat for the US.

Still waiting on an answer from him.

Um... how would we know if what we've done made things worse or better?

Have you sat in Obama's, Bush's, Clinton's, Daddy Bush's chair with all the facts?

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).

 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?