Quote:
Originally Posted by AceArcher
Let me clarify a couple thing before i ask you to clarify the above.
1) I am not saying that we cannot go toe to toe with anyone, we most certainly can.
2) I am saying that to dismiss a potential enemy as "not being worth a pimple on our azz" is pretty foolish thinking, and quite frankly every enemy post WWII who we not taken seriously has handed us our azzes.
After 60+ years of post WWII conflicts, and 20+ years post cold war. Our military has just now really begun transforming itself to it's current mission of anti/terrorist / insurgency fighting. It remains to be seen if giving up our large scale conflict preparedness is the right thing to do.
You say above that we need to wage war on them or they will come and wage war on us.
Without a strong coalition of foreign nations (think Soviets, China, + middle east) coming together there will be no battles fought on american land (this assumes euro neutrality (if they choose to side with us, the battles will occur on their land first)
If instead of traditional war your referring to terrorism, Then that is actually a facet of the methods in which countries choose to enforce their particular brand of -ism. Terror tactics were created to fight / wage war upon an opponent whom you cannot hope to best in a traditional manner. The problem / downfall of this is that in fighting terrorists you have to adopt unconventional tactics and you thereby create more terrorists every time you kill them.
Thus, our policy should be one of "Live and Let Die" mind our own damned business, stop investing in goat herder futures, and start investing in our own nations infrastructure. Whether it be through exploitation of our own energy fields, or its getting going with proven hydrogen fuel tech, we certainly have the ability NOW to be energy independant.
We should support our Strong Allies in the case of aggressions against their borders. But short of that we should mind our own business.
What's holding these things up is not just the world politics it's the money. Do you think the OIL lobby wants to create a situation where america will become less oil dependant? Do you think the Military Industrial Lobby wants peace?
Alternatively we can keep sending our 18 & 19 year old's to the mideast, who will undoubtably shoot a couple mullahs, with a few civilian casualty's on the side, and thereby help to grow the next generation of terrorists. I guess if it gets to be to much to handle we can just nuke the whole lot of em..... that should work well?
|
All good valid points, but I did not dismiss a potential enemy as "not being worth a pimple on our azz". That was someone else.
And I did not say that we need to wage war on them, I said unfortunately that if we do nothing, it will eventually spill over into the US.
I believe you take me for an individual that believes we should engage in the same tactics as our previous engagements. My belief is exact opposite, we should engage first, yes, but do it with muscle and make an example that the US is no longer a bunch of p u s sies. We should go in and slaughter all who are associated with terrosists organizations. It would take roughly a month. Then pull our troops back to the US. Then dare any terrosist group to organize and make the same mistake. If it were done in this manner, it would not cost the US but a fraction of the normal cost associated.