Obama adopts a conservative approach!

[top gun]

BigRob;78409]You also do not have time to waste if you have intel that confirms that Iraq has a WMD program.

We just have a fundamental disagreement. I think you honestly believe it was all just bad intel dropped in George Bush's lap.

I believe there was "some" bad intel... but also believe fully that it's clear from people that have come forward from inside the administration that there was a stated predisposition to invade Iraq from the start, and that intel was selectively manipulated.

We're just at loggerheads on this one my friend.

This sounds fine, but it is not the way (nor has it ever been the way) the United States handles diplomatic meetings. Typically the US goes in, says here is our position. The other side (knowing we have 10 fall backs positions) says that is not good enough 10 times until we cave on everything.

Things sometimes have to change just for that fact. Because everyone already knows how they are usually done. Talking hurts nothing... but not talking can.

We should go in not with the mentality of "if it is not good enough what else can we offer" but rather "why is this not good enough, you have to make changes as well." Right now we fail miserably on these fronts.

Now we're not going to agree I realize this... but I believe Bush evolved as such a no negotiation A-hole... that in itself understandably poisoned the well of negotiation.

The reason the Libyan WMD program was eliminated was due in large part to the fact that the US went in with 1 position and instructions of "do not mess this up."

And lobing a couple cruise missiles into Gaddafi's tent killing his son tended to get his attention as well.

And that's exactly how we should have handled Hussein. No boots on the ground. Just keep taking out Palaces or anyplace the intel targeted us to.

If Israel attacks Iran, we are going to get blamed for it, and we will be retaliated against. In Iran, an attack by Israel is the same as an attack by the United States. Further, an airstrike on a reactor in Iran does not stop the program.

Like President Clinton said brilliantly... We'll NEVER be able to kill or capture all who oppose us. So diplomacy will always be an important part of any world peace.

As far as the reactor. Hopefully if it comes to that Israel will just keep handing Iran major setbacks. The main problem is eventually almost every country is going to possess some pretty potent WMD of some sort.

No one can ever keep technology off the table forever. I mean for Christ sake India & Pakistan have NUKES!!!!!!!! That just amazes me on it's face.

Again... you never know who's going to end up with what. I like to keep communication going.

The world (for the most part) does not want to see a nuclear Iran either. Sadly economic interests between Iran and Security Council members mean that it is up to us.

Agreed.

I present this logic because it is the correct response.

Even something that once seemed very logical can become outdated and not nearly as effective as it once was... or even just take us right back to a worse time. We'll see.

I support his service 100%. I do not support his political backtracking. A distinction can be made. Obama made one with McCain, why am I not entitled to make one with Powell?

You're entitled to hold your own opinion as you see it.

I can't go along because I disagree with your premise. I believe Powell to be a VERY straight shooter, a moderate, that was played as somewhat of a political pawn by people like Cheney & Rumsfeld because of his stellar reputation.

Seeing the light finally I see.

Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

Or be glad that he might finally be able to make a rational informed decision, unlike his original war opposition.

I'm thinkin' he's gonna continue to be right a lot more than he's gonna be wrong. But that's my guy!

 

[BigRob]

We just have a fundamental disagreement. I think you honestly believe it was all just bad intel dropped in George Bush's lap.

I believe there was "some" bad intel... but also believe fully that it's clear from people that have come forward from inside the administration that there was a stated predisposition to invade Iraq from the start, and that intel was selectively manipulated.

We're just at loggerheads on this one my friend.

Agreed, but I am correct.

Things sometimes have to change just for that fact. Because everyone already knows how they are usually done. Talking hurts nothing... but not talking can.

If it is viewed as giving legitimacy to the program, or will be shaped domestically in Iran as the West caving into the Iranian demands, talking can impede our policy objectives.

Now we're not going to agree I realize this... but I believe Bush evolved as such a no negotiation A-hole... that in itself understandably poisoned the well of negotiation.

I do not see this. Perhaps in the case of Iran, but not really with anyone else I do not think.

And lobing a couple cruise missiles into Gaddafi's tent killing his son tended to get his attention as well.

True enough, as did the invasion of Iraq. I actually know the guy that lead that negotiation, I think the lack of fall back positions did help out in a big way. (Along with many other factors)

And that's exactly how we should have handled Hussein. No boots on the ground. Just keep taking out Palaces or anyplace the intel targeted us to.

Maybe, but his ability to retaliate with oil and drive a wedge between us and Saudi Arabia was a big risk.

Like President Clinton said brilliantly... We'll NEVER be able to kill or capture all who oppose us. So diplomacy will always be an important part of any world peace.

I will agree with this, but I will agree with it on a state by state basis. Non-state actors I feel should be treated differently than formal governments of states.

As far as the reactor. Hopefully if it comes to that Israel will just keep handing Iran major setbacks. The main problem is eventually almost every country is going to possess some pretty potent WMD of some sort.

No one can ever keep technology off the table forever. I mean for Christ sake India & Pakistan have NUKES!!!!!!!! That just amazes me on it's face.

Again... you never know who's going to end up with what. I like to keep communication going.

If Israel hits Iran, we will take the heat for it, most likely in Iraq. Or, perhaps a missile strike on Saudi oil fields.

I think with one day nuclear weapons will be obsolete. We should work to make that day sooner rather than later.

I can't go along because I disagree with your premise. I believe Powell to be a VERY straight shooter, a moderate, that was played as somewhat of a political pawn by people like Cheney & Rumsfeld because of his stellar reputation.

Perhaps.

Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

My watch is not broken.

I'm thinkin' he's gonna continue to be right a lot more than he's gonna be wrong. But that's my guy

I do hope you are correct.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;78524]Agreed, but I am correct.

I can only try to bring you away from the Dark Side. We are now in return of the Jedi not the Clone wars.

If it is viewed as giving legitimacy to the program, or will be shaped domestically in Iran as the West caving into the Iranian demands, talking can impede our policy objectives.

That's just fundamentally NOT the case at all. We negotiated with the former USSR that were at one time a thousand times more dangerous and lethal than Iran. Eventually the people of their own country turned on the government and there was a HUGE change in the overall dynamic.

Shoot first ask questions later is just simply not a rational foreign policy.

I do not see this. Perhaps in the case of Iran, but not really with anyone else I do not think.

The Bush administration has hurt our overall standing in world opinion there's just no doubt about it. Yes we still have Allies but even many of them are now somewhat temped in their support. And much of that is because the regular everyday people of these countries see Bush for what he is... a not all that smart Cowboy.

Guaranteed once W. is out of office put him up against President Clinton going anywhere overseas and the response will be night and day in favor of President Clinton.

True enough, as did the invasion of Iraq. I actually know the guy that lead that negotiation, I think the lack of fall back positions did help out in a big way. (Along with many other factors)

See... we still find common ground from time to time.

Maybe, but his ability to retaliate with oil and drive a wedge between us and Saudi Arabia was a big risk.

I just have a fundamental difference of opinion of actually killing people or putting or troops in harms way. This is one area I actually agreed with Ron Paul about. Defending from a military invasion or going in when asked to support a Allie that has been attacked or invaded is pretty much my threshold.

I will agree with this, but I will agree with it on a state by state basis. Non-state actors I feel should be treated differently than formal governments of states.

TWICE in the same post! I still have a bag of Obama 08 buttons around here somewhere... hit me up with your address I'll mail ya one... LOL!

Seriously though we don't agree... damn it!

I think I know your basic mind set and it's most likely not along the lines I hold. I agree with a combination of President Clinton's approach along with a special anti-terror military strike force to combat terrorism.

First and foremost these people are criminals and should be treated as such if captured. That means no to torture and yes to trials and sentencing.

However I also highly believe in attacking militarily at the source if it's overseas. I would prefer to never put boots on the ground and do everything from the air but a Super Seals or Ranger type force to be dropped in to wipe out small cells and then be extracted or even assassination of known throughly document terrorist leaders holds no problem with me either.

On a "strategery" level I'm just not an invade and try to hold a whole country to attack a terrorist cell type of guy.

If Israel hits Iran, we will take the heat for it, most likely in Iraq. Or, perhaps a missile strike on Saudi oil fields.

That's fine. I don't mean that's fine from a good thing to happen perspective. I'm saying if it's going to happen anyway it's best to keep our fingerprints "officially" off of it.

I think with one day nuclear weapons will be obsolete. We should work to make that day sooner rather than later.

I think that's going to be pretty much impossible and I'll tell ya why. Nukes are the great leveler of power. Like I've said before in regard to Russia. If you have the ability to destroy the entire earth 300 times over... the fact someone else can do it 400 times doesn't really matter at all.

And I also never see Israel giving them up for obvious reasons. And I'd see no way even with countries like India & Pakistan unless they feel on such hard times we could buy them out on their stock pile and program.

It's not like I, Mr. Liberal wouldn't want this to happen. Little would make me happier. But I think the most we can really hope for is reductions.

I can't go along because I disagree with your premise. I believe Powell to be a VERY straight shooter, a moderate, that was played as somewhat of a political pawn by people like Cheney & Rumsfeld because of his stellar reputation. [/COLOR]

Perhaps.

You realize this is almost (3) THREE agreements! Now I'm starting to have to reevaluate all my previous positions my friend!

My watch is not broken.

Just a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin. Sometime timepeices can hit a glitch!

I do hope you are correct.

I believe that all thinking Americans just want America to work well for it's people.

If I had one wish it would be that for just one full Presidential term I'd like to see what happened with true serious bipartisanship. See if it didn't work much better and that important things did really start to be fixed.

Never happen though... there's always somebody that can't get elected or re-elected that way. But it's a good wish.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ROB... AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO US ALL!

 

[BigRob]

That's just fundamentally NOT the case at all. We negotiated with the former USSR that were at one time a thousand times more dangerous and lethal than Iran. Eventually the people of their own country turned on the government and there was a HUGE change in the overall dynamic.

Shoot first ask questions later is just simply not a rational foreign policy.

I think the case of Russia and the Iran are different. Russia was a superpower, and it was necessary to talk to them because between the United States and Russia, the entire world was controlled.

In the case of Iran, I feel the leadership is looking to score quick points domestically by looking strong against the West. I think allowing this is a mistake. Outside of this, Iran has already rejected Obama's proposal, I do not think they are interested in stopping their no program, no matter what we have to say about it.

The Bush administration has hurt our overall standing in world opinion there's just no doubt about it. Yes we still have Allies but even many of them are now somewhat temped in their support. And much of that is because the regular everyday people of these countries see Bush for what he is... a not all that smart Cowboy.

Sure, opinion (in certain parts of the world) in support of the US is low right now, but fundamentally many of our allies still rely on our support, and will support us in one way or another, even if they oppose the Iraq War.

Guaranteed once W. is out of office put him up against President Clinton going anywhere overseas and the response will be night and day in favor of President Clinton.

I would not look for him doing much overseas works, unless it is in Africa. He is very popular in many parts of Africa for money given to fight AIDS.

I just have a fundamental difference of opinion of actually killing people or putting or troops in harms way. This is one area I actually agreed with Ron Paul about. Defending from a military invasion or going in when asked to support a Allie that has been attacked or invaded is pretty much my threshold.

I think you can make the case that any war is in support of an ally. I don't really buy into that argument because it can mean anything. I think, as the world's superpower, we should protect our interests abroad. Once we stop doing that, someone else will, and they will naturally challenge us for dominance. I would prefer that we remained dominant as long as possible.

TWICE in the same post![/B] I still have a bag of Obama 08 buttons around here somewhere... hit me up with your address I'll mail ya one... LOL!

I must have put to much cough syrup in the eggnog.

I think I know your basic mind set and it's most likely not along the lines I hold. I agree with a combination of President Clinton's approach along with a special anti-terror military strike force to combat terrorism.

First and foremost these people are criminals and should be treated as such if captured. That means no to torture and yes to trials and sentencing.

I understand this strategy and I feel that it has its uses. However, I think you cannot turn war into law enforcement and expect to be successful. They are fundamentally different.

However I also highly believe in attacking militarily at the source if it's overseas. I would prefer to never put boots on the ground and do everything from the air but a Super Seals or Ranger type force to be dropped in to wipe out small cells and then be extracted or even assassination of known throughly document terrorist leaders holds no problem with me either.

There are a lot of people who support this type of military as well, however I think it limits our range. I also feel, that as the world's superpower, every problem anywhere becomes our problem or an allies problem (and hence our problem). I believe that we need capability to quickly put substantial forces anywhere in the world at any time. I feel we should not limit ourselves to light units coming off of carriers.

Also, I think that in many operations these type units will not suffice. Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan is a perfect example of this in my opinion. I am all for limited missions, but they are not always a viable option, and you have to have other options on the table.

On a "strategery" level I'm just not an invade and try to hold a whole country to attack a terrorist cell type of guy.

I think in the case of Afghanistan is was certainly necessary to topple the entire government, because the government was a large part of the problem. In many cases, such as in Iraq, if we started running ranger missions and it was found out, the response had the potential to be very costly. I think it depends on the country in question.

That's fine. I don't mean that's fine from a good thing to happen perspective. I'm saying if it's going to happen anyway it's best to keep our fingerprints "officially" off of it.

I think if we want it done we need to do it ourselves. If we get blamed for a limited Israeli attack (really all they can muster), why not just go all out and hit it ourselves? That way we can ensure Israel does not go overboard and throw a few tactical nukes at the problem (which they have been training for). That is bad news for everybody.

I think that's going to be pretty much impossible and I'll tell ya why. Nukes are the great leveler of power. Like I've said before in regard to Russia. If you have the ability to destroy the entire earth 300 times over... the fact someone else can do it 400 times doesn't really matter at all.

I think it does matter, and I think how you have them structured is vital. If you have 20 nukes, and your opponent has 20 nukes many would claim there is parity. However, if you 20 nukes are 1st strike weapons in known locations, your opponent has a pretty good chance of being able to take them all out with a first strike. If you are vulnerable to a first strike, there is no parity in my view. Right now our missile design technology is lagging. The Trident is a fine missile, but the Russian SS-27 is flat out better in my opinion.

That is a digression however, the point is, if you are vulnerable to a first strike, you do not have parity, no matter how missiles you have.

And I also never see Israel giving them up for obvious reasons. And I'd see no way even with countries like India & Pakistan unless they feel on such hard times we could buy them out on their stock pile and program.

It's not like I, Mr. Liberal wouldn't want this to happen. Little would make me happier. But I think the most we can really hope for is reductions.

Israel will not give them up I agree, unless they become obsolete. I think Pakistan and India "selling" their program is wishful thinking. Even if they did do that, they would simply make some more.

Part of the problem with Pakistan is their main delivery system is the F-16. So any war that breaks out with India can go nuclear in a hurry if Pakistan loses the air war. If they lose their planes and are unable to deliver the warhead, then they mind as well just not have the weapon. It could force them to act rashly.

However, there will be a day in the future, where nuclear weapons will not be all that bad, or they will be able to be defended against.

You realize this is almost (3) THREE agreements! Now I'm starting to have to reevaluate all my previous positions my friend!

I will just agree with everything you say and before long you will be thinking like me.

And I must double check the eggnog.

I believe that all thinking Americans just want America to work well for it's people.

If I had one wish it would be that for just one full Presidential term I'd like to see what happened with true serious bipartisanship. See if it didn't work much better and that important things did really start to be fixed.

Never happen though... there's always somebody that can't get elected or re-elected that way. But it's a good wish.

I personally think some level of partisanship is a good thing. It ensures that we do not all becomes "yes" people and debate continues on every issue.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ROB...AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO US ALL!

Merry Christmas to you as well, hope the holidays are good.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In the case of Iran, I feel the leadership is looking to score quick points domestically by looking strong against the West. I think allowing this is a mistake.

Yeah.....before you know it, they might group the U.S., with other western-countries, and tag us The Axis Of Evil.

If you "conservatives" have such a hard-core aversion to name-calling, maybe you should have reigned-in The Idiot Son, before he started the ball rolling on such intolerable-tactics.​

 

[BigRob]

Yeah.....before you know it, they might group the U.S., with other western-countries, and tag us The Axis Of Evil.

If you "conservatives" have such a hard-core aversion to name-calling, maybe you should have reigned-in The Idiot Son, before he started the ball rolling on such intolerable-tactics.​

If you have a substantive post to make I will read it, until then, this is my last response to you.

 

[Pidgey]

Well, that's that, then...

 

[top gun]

BigRob;78558]I think the case of Russia and the Iran are different. Russia was a superpower, and it was necessary to talk to them because between the United States and Russia, the entire world was controlled.

In the case of Iran, I feel the leadership is looking to score quick points domestically by looking strong against the West. I think allowing this is a mistake. Outside of this, Iran has already rejected Obama's proposal, I do not think they are interested in stopping their no program, no matter what we have to say about it.

There are some differences. But I think when we look at the entire region we see their religious make up binds them together even tighter than Communism.

We have two choices as I see it. One: Struggle to be the World Police in every country, area or region that does not agree with us. Or two: Work energetically with diplomacy and a continuing effort to work out even the smallest agreement. I'm generally against setting ourselves up in a place by place military Whack-A-Mole strategy.

The gun is always right there sitting on the table. It's easy to pick up that gun and shoot. It's hard to work out peaceful agreements. Things truly valuable and lasting are seldom easy.

Sure, opinion (in certain parts of the world) in support of the US is low right now, but fundamentally many of our allies still rely on our support, and will support us in one way or another, even if they oppose the Iraq War.

I don't dispute we have a few relatively staunch Allies. And I also agree in your statement "in one way or another".

My point is I'm striving for a broadening of our appeal overseas. You can't have the blunders of this administration (regardless of the reasons) and not expect a more inquisitive eye when we say something is FACT. The UN or any country overseas... or even the American people for that matter are less trusting. We need to change that.

I think you can make the case that any war is in support of an ally. I don't really buy into that argument because it can mean anything. I think, as the world's superpower, we should protect our interests abroad. Once we stop doing that, someone else will, and they will naturally challenge us for dominance. I would prefer that we remained dominant as long as possible.

Well invading Iraq under Bush #41 definitely was... and under Bush #42 it definitely was not. Lines often get blurred to allow various agendas. That can end up to be costly & dangerous and the bar should be set high IMO.

I'm not big on "dominating". I'm big on always being able to win any particular conflict that rises to a military level. But we have no right, Super Power or not, to set any other sovereign country's destiny.

I must have put to much cough syrup in the eggnog.

Don't ya just love the holidays!

I understand this strategy and I feel that it has its uses. However, I think you cannot turn war into law enforcement and expect to be successful. They are fundamentally different.

Let's agree that it's a two pronged problem. On one hand there are some overseas military style terrorist training camps. And although they are nothing even remotely close to even the smallest State Army... they of course are not going to be "arrested" and would have to be taken out militarily.

But on the other hand the real major threat to the United States will never be a military invasion of America. An Al-Qaeda Navy or Air Force isn't going to attack & invade us.

9-11 was accomplished by just a couple handfuls of crazy suicided bombers that hijacked some unprepared planes. Not at all unlike the guys that dressed up in full Body Armor and robbed banks in California just killing police and bystanders as they went along.

These are nut job criminals. To elevate them to a military status is something to me they just truly are not worthy of.

There are a lot of people who support this type of military as well, however I think it limits our range. I also feel, that as the world's superpower, every problem anywhere becomes our problem or an allies problem (and hence our problem). I believe that we need capability to quickly put substantial forces anywhere in the world at any time. I feel we should not limit ourselves to light units coming off of carriers.

Also, I think that in many operations these type units will not suffice. Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan is a perfect example of this in my opinion. I am all for limited missions, but they are not always a viable option, and you have to have other options on the table.

My opinion is that after 9-11 we got were so shocked that we allowed ourselves to over compensate. What I mean by that is we believed we could just kill , capture or jail all that opposed the US. I believe this was our fundamental (yet somewhat understandable) mistake.

Had we spent one tenth the money spent in Iraq on the newest most potent technologies on-line at every airport, shipyard and potentially venerable internal homeland site we would have Homeland Security that is out of this world protective.

Add to that the large bounties on the heads of leaders of terrorist cells overseas along with selective military bombings and high power hit & extract attacks and while you'd never completely annihilate every terrorist (which you'd never do no matter what you did anyway) you'd keep them so weakened it would be every bit as good in preventing US attacks as this Whack-A-Mole strategy costing trillions.

I think if we want it done we need to do it ourselves. If we get blamed for a limited Israeli attack (really all they can muster), why not just go all out and hit it ourselves? That way we can ensure Israel does not go overboard and throw a few tactical nukes at the problem (which they have been training for). That is bad news for everybody.

I'm a "it's their backyard sort of guy". Israel is more than able to do this with the same ability & accuracy that we could. Given the choice I'd rather take the blame by proxy than to leave no doubt.

I think it does matter, and I think how you have them structured is vital. If you have 20 nukes, and your opponent has 20 nukes many would claim there is parity. However, if you 20 nukes are 1st strike weapons in known locations, your opponent has a pretty good chance of being able to take them all out with a first strike. If you are vulnerable to a first strike, there is no parity in my view. Right now our missile design technology is lagging. The Trident is a fine missile, but the Russian SS-27 is flat out better in my opinion.

But there becomes a glaring logistics problem with this argument. First once you have an abundance of Nukes a few things happen.

First... you don't need all that many to virtually destroy any country.

Secondly... even destroying them on their site in mass quantities likely contaminates and kills the whole world in fairly short order.

Third... were this threat scenario start to arise over time I'm pretty certain the Russians are as smart as you and I. I'd personally make as many mobile as possible. Sea launched, mobile launch, hidden launch and break down to widespread mass-multiple small sites.

Forth... Any other country might jump into play. Nukes on the way to Russian look a lot like Nukes on the way to China... if you're China. It could even be seen as an attempted world take over.

That is a digression however, the point is, if you are vulnerable to a first strike, you do not have parity, no matter how missiles you have.

I think you are correct but unfortunately also working a somewhat moot point especially in relationship to a Russia or China... because there are still plenty to kill us all.

Not shooting off Nukes works as a pretty decent deterrent to not shooting off Nukes. Get to really shooting them off and it's really just a big house of cards for everybody.

However, there will be a day in the future, where nuclear weapons will not be all that bad, or they will be able to be defended against.

Here we go again! If that ever happens I will join you in welcoming in that day.

I will just agree with everything you say and before long you will be thinking like me.

And I must double check the eggnog.

YOU! I'll be a full blown alcoholic if this Kumbaya stuff keeps up!

Seriously though if Conservative to Liberal were a football field (50 yard line being neutral) I'd be able to work together and find common ground down to about the Conservative 40 and to the Liberal down to about the 20... OK maybe 15!

I personally think some level of partisanship is a good thing. It ensures that we do not all becomes "yes" people and debate continues on every issue.

I respect debate and see the value as well. But I don't like the Karl Rove model of demonizing. I became much more outspoken and condemning myself as I saw the need to fight fire with fire.

Let's hope for a return to a more honest & civilized way of doing things.

Merry Christmas to you as well, hope the holidays are good.

Speakers on everybody... because I'm bringing the Party mix!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOGjZU9cJuM

 

[BigRob]

There are some differences. But I think when we look at the entire region we see their religious make up binds them together even tighter than Communism.

I think the religious element is important, but it does not bind the Middle East together. There are multiple religions in most of those nations that do not get along.

We have two choices as I see it. One: Struggle to be the World Police in every country, area or region that does not agree with us. Or two: Work energetically with diplomacy and a continuing effort to work out even the smallest agreement. I'm generally against setting ourselves up in a place by place military Whack-A-Mole strategy.

I think we have to be concerned with every flare up in the world because it is all connected. A problem for India becomes a problem for Pakistan and China, this becomes a problem for Russia etc etc... We need to be able to work with allies yes, but we must also accept that whatever "diplomacy" is will only get you so far.

The gun is always right there sitting on the table. It's easy to pick up that gun and shoot. It's hard to work out peaceful agreements. Things truly valuable and lasting are seldom easy.

It is hard I agree. It is made harder by our negotiation tactics.

I don't dispute we have a few relatively staunch Allies. And I also agree in your statement "in one way or another".

My point is I'm striving for a broadening of our appeal overseas. You can't have the blunders of this administration (regardless of the reasons) and not expect a more inquisitive eye when we say something is FACT. The UN or any country overseas... or even the American people for that matter are less trusting. We need to change that.

I view the UN as mostly useless in issues of conflict. That said, the world can have an inquisitive eye all they want, this does not change the fact that we need to protect our interests.

Well invading Iraq under Bush #41 definitely was... and under Bush #42 it definitely was not. Lines often get blurred to allow various agendas. That can end up to be costly & dangerous and the bar should be set high IMO.

Depends on who you are talking to. There are plenty of countries in the Middle East happy to see Iraq gone as a regional threat.

I'm not big on "dominating". I'm big on always being able to win any particular conflict that rises to a military level. But we have no right, Super Power or not, to set any other sovereign country's destiny.

If protecting our interests requires this action, I feel we have every right.

Don't ya just love the holidays!

Let's agree that it's a two pronged problem. On one hand there are some overseas military style terrorist training camps. And although they are nothing even remotely close to even the smallest State Army... they of course are not going to be "arrested" and would have to be taken out militarily.

Well, to take the diplomatic approach, we would negotiate for a few years before hitting the camps. Why not just hit them? The problem is, it only takes a few people to cause major damage.

But on the other hand the real major threat to the United States will never be a military invasion of America. An Al-Qaeda Navy or Air Force isn't going to attack & invade us.

No, but they are still a huge threat.

9-11 was accomplished by just a couple handfuls of crazy suicided bombers that hijacked some unprepared planes. Not at all unlike the guys that dressed up in full Body Armor and robbed banks in California just killing police and bystanders as they went along.

These are nut job criminals. To elevate them to a military status is something to me they just truly are not worthy of.

I disagree. You do not send in the Police Department to fight a war. You send the Army. We need to stop viewing the Army's role as a police department, and let them win the war.

My opinion is that after 9-11 we got were so shocked that we allowed ourselves to over compensate. What I mean by that is we believed we could just kill , capture or jail all that opposed the US. I believe this was our fundamental (yet somewhat understandable) mistake.

I do not believe it was a mistake. We have broken the back of Al-Qaeda, we need to ensure they are not able to get up.

Had we spent one tenth the money spent in Iraq on the newest most potent technologies on-line at every airport, shipyard and potentially venerable internal homeland site we would have Homeland Security that is out of this world protective.

DHS is a joke.

Add to that the large bounties on the heads of leaders of terrorist cells overseas along with selective military bombings and high power hit & extract attacks and while you'd never completely annihilate every terrorist (which you'd never do no matter what you did anyway) you'd keep them so weakened it would be every bit as good in preventing US attacks as this Whack-A-Mole strategy costing trillions.

I do not think you can defeat terrorism with surgical airstrikes. Half the time we hit a spot they have already abandoned.

I'm a "it's their backyard sort of guy". Israel is more than able to do this with the same ability & accuracy that we could. Given the choice I'd rather take the blame by proxy than to leave no doubt.

I am not willing to cause a nuclear arms race in the Middle East because it was "their back yard." Israel is not able to carry out the attack with the same precision we can either. I think if they do carry it out, we are going to be very upset about it in private, no matter the public response.

But there becomes a glaring logistics problem with this argument. First once you have an abundance of Nukes a few things happen.

First... you don't need all that many to virtually destroy any country.

True, but if you know where they are located, their threat is diminished.

Secondly... even destroying them on their site in mass quantities likely contaminates and kills the whole world in fairly short order.

Destroying a nuclear warhead does not cause a detonation.

Third... were this threat scenario start to arise over time I'm pretty certain the Russians are as smart as you and I. I'd personally make as many mobile as possible. Sea launched, mobile launch, hidden launch and break down to widespread mass-multiple small sites.

The Russians have done exactly this. Many of their missiles are mobile. The 27 for example is a very mobile missile.

Forth... Any other country might jump into play. Nukes on the way to Russian look a lot like Nukes on the way to China... if you're China. It could even be seen as an attempted world take over.

China has very limited ICBM capability, and Russia could sustain a Chinese launch, but yes, in a scenario such as this, there will be confusion.

I think you are correct but unfortunately also working a somewhat moot point especially in relationship to a Russia or China... because there are still plenty to kill us all.

It is not nuclear war with Russia that we need a missile shield against, it is a nuclear Iran, or North Korea that presents us with the biggest problem right now.

Not shooting off Nukes works as a pretty decent deterrent to not shooting off Nukes. Get to really shooting them off and it's really just a big house of cards for everybody.

I am not saying we should launch pre-emptive nuclear war, however, we should be prepared to defend against one.

YOU! I'll be a full blown alcoholic if this Kumbaya stuff keeps up!

Seriously though if Conservative to Liberal were a football field (50 yard line being neutral) I'd be able to work together and find common ground down to about the Conservative 40 and to the Liberal down to about the 20... OK maybe 15!

I can see Liberals points of view on many arguments, I just disagree with the majority of them. I am inside the 5 on the conservative side.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

How about instead he makes policy from the middle as he should. Hopefully the immature partisan bickering is largely over and we can actually focus on fixing the major issues we face.

I guess we're gonna find-OUT!!​

"As a rule, a new president's choice of a secretary of transportation makes few headlines, even when the appointee is a member of the opposition.

This one, however, is loaded with meaning because LaHood is no ordinary member of Congress. He has been, as Shields pointed out, one of the most widely respected members of the House; a leader in the uphill struggle for comity between the parties; and a throwback to the days of his old boss Bob Michel, the minority leader who resisted the scorched-earth tactics of Newt Gingrich. Such was LaHood's reputation for fairness that he was the natural choice to preside over the House during the explosive impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton.

The significance of his accepting Obama's offer goes beyond the signal it sends of the new president's seriousness about outreach to moderate Republicans. As transportation secretary, LaHood will be at the center of the road and bridge construction projects Obama plans to make the highlight of his almost trillion-dollar stimulus program.

All the signs are that the stimulus spending will be opposed by congressional Republicans, whose shrunken ranks are increasingly dominated by right-wing Southerners who care not what their stance does to harm the party's national image.

The spectacle of LaHood facing off in congressional testimony against those naysayers will dramatize a split that is crippling the GOP."

Oh......this is gonna be goooooooooooooooooood!!

​

 

[top gun]

BigRob;79189]I think the religious element is important, but it does not bind the Middle East together. There are multiple religions in most of those nations that do not get along.

True but we have seen that there is a rise of anti-American sentiment in the overall Muslim world. Add to that the fact that even many of the countries in the region that we do appear to have a somewhat decent relationship with often have multiple agendas that are often not favorable to the West.

Diplomacy is an ongoing process in good times & bad for exactly these types of reasons.

I think we have to be concerned with every flare up in the world because it is all connected. A problem for India becomes a problem for Pakistan and China, this becomes a problem for Russia etc etc... We need to be able to work with allies yes, but we must also accept that whatever "diplomacy" is will only get you so far.

There's no doubt a strong country has to be able to back up it's "talk" with action. I think the question (the possible difference that we have) is what is the proper threshold for a highly committed very long term action such as invasion and long term take over & occupation.

I thought President Clinton's overall approach in Bosnia was a good one. And I respect General Collin Powell's doctrine of... military force if needed should be overwhelming from the start without long term occupations and a clearly defined exit strategy up front before going in.

It is hard I agree. It is made harder by our negotiation tactics.

Yes but I think we disagree on what made them harder. I think if you go in with the idea that the US can and will be the World Police and force other countries to act as it sees fit... that's a huge strategic blunder. I'd call that the Bush blonder.

President Clinton for what I think is a much better tactic had the goal of simply trying to keep people talking and not escalating their conflicts. This requires much less of a military and cost commitment on the part of the US and it tends to bring in more LONG TERM partners in terms of peace keepers.

Much like US politics in most every multinational conflict neither party is without fault. Jumping in too much on one side or the other can be a slippery slope. Hence I like the Clinton approach of stringing out talks and trying to build some personal relationships with both sides & each other.

The hope is that it becomes harder to want to kill a person that you've worked with than it is to kill someone you haven't really interacted with much at all.

BREAKING THIS INTO 2 POSTS...

 

[top gun]

I view the UN as mostly useless in issues of conflict. That said, the world can have an inquisitive eye all they want, this does not change the fact that we need to protect our interests.

It depends on the conflict. In some cases the UN (and peacemaker forces) can be very useful. The old saying that no one should get too big for their britches is a life lesson to acknowledge.

We would not want to be thrust into a position where we were seen as such "our way or the highway bullies" that the rest of the world congealed around another major country. Or for that matter even a military merging of just a few other countries. Just Russia and China alone with their present day allies would put the US in a much, much worse position than we are today.

Depends on who you are talking to. There are plenty of countries in the Middle East happy to see Iraq gone as a regional threat.

Well Iraq was the counter balance to Iran in the region and the new Iraqi government is heavily tilted religiously in Iran's direction now... so they're glad.

If protecting our interests requires this action, I feel we have every right.

America is a single country... not the dictator of world policy?

We have the right to protect America from an immanent attack, retaliate for an attack or to repel an invasion, and we have alliances to protect various other weaker nations from attack... that's about all the "rights" we have overseas.

There are super high profile American wack jobs all over the place like McCain supporter the Reverend Rod Parsley that say America was created to kill Muslims. He would think converting all Muslim countries to Christianity was protecting US interests... but he is... as usual... totally wrong.

sidebar: Parsley's World Harvest Church is about a mile down the road from my house. Total evangelical lunatic!

Well, to take the diplomatic approach, we would negotiate for a few years before hitting the camps. Why not just hit them? The problem is, it only takes a few people to cause major damage.

Because there has been cases of success and the avoidance in bloodshed through diplomacy. We saw that with many of the War Lords in Iraq. Killing people that truly believe they are in the right only creates martyrs & helps to create new generations of fighters.

Look at it this way. Say your family were all well known Klan leaders (example only). And say the Somali government put a hit on them and killed your mother & father because they were so against racism having themselves suffered in the past from the slave trade.

That act of violence would only harden your commitment to hate Somalis not better things in anyway whatsoever.

No, but they are still a huge threat.

But certainly not an invade and hold entire countries threat. Al-Qaeda is not unlike the Mafia with it's hit men or Columbian drug cartel killers or as far a nationwide death tolls the Crips & the Bloods or the Hells Angels and the Outlaws in their heyday.

I'll give you an interesting "never believe you have supreme power" biker story at the end...

I disagree. You do not send in the Police Department to fight a war. You send the Army. We need to stop viewing the Army's role as a police department, and let them win the war.

We just have a difference in approach. Mine is put one tenth of the money wasted in Iraq into real homeland security upgrades here at home and overseas bounties and targeting intel. This is all basically police & spy work.

The military part can then at a much, MUCH cheaper in both cost and loss of American life plus actually be more overall effective at what should be our goal... keeping Americans in America as safe as possible.

I do not believe it was a mistake. We have broken the back of Al-Qaeda, we need to ensure they are not able to get up.

You're foolin' yourself if you don't think that there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people out there regardless of brand name that would support another 9-11 type of attack or worse. This isn't some Rambo movie where when they run credits the bad guys are all dead & defeated and the world is safe.

I am not willing to cause a nuclear arms race in the Middle East because it was "their back yard." Israel is not able to carry out the attack with the same precision we can either. I think if they do carry it out, we are going to be very upset about it in private, no matter the public response.

I think there is a threshold whatever that may be that when passed Israel will do the strike. That's the outcome I see happening.

True, but if you know where they are located, their threat is diminished.

My family is just as dead or dying if one big nuke goes off in central Ohio as if ten do.

I can guarantee you that we have nukes in places that other countries have not identified and visa versa.

Destroying a nuclear warhead does not cause a detonation.

A) That depends on the Nuke and the strike. It is quite possible to trigger a Nuke by a strike.

B) Even not fully detoated we're talking about thousands of weapons and their toxic contents released into the world environment... not to mention the ones that are actually launched delivering full payload.

C) Even if you know were something is... doesn't mean you can get there and destroy it before it's launched. A prepared launch only takes a few seconds to a few minutes.

The Russians have done exactly this. Many of their missiles are mobile. The 27 for example is a very mobile missile.

And those are the ones you know of!

China has very limited ICBM capability, and Russia could sustain a Chinese launch, but yes, in a scenario such as this, there will be confusion.

Once again... confusion ain't anyone's friend in an all out nuclear war.

It is not nuclear war with Russia that we need a missile shield against, it is a nuclear Iran, or North Korea that presents us with the biggest problem right now.

Russia's postion... you put an 18' ladder up that could possibly break into our home... we'll focus on taking out your ladder. They may even for a more deturant effect creat a formal alliance with the very countries you wish to target making their standing even higher.

It's the time old... Your enemies enemy is my friend, scenario.

I can see Liberals points of view on many arguments, I just disagree with the majority of them. I am inside the 5 on the conservative side.

WOW!... that's got to be tough right now. I'll be glad to see things change myself.

NOW TO MY BIKER STORY... which is really a story about seemingly overwhelming power v. outcome:

Back in the day after college I worked in a bike shop and got into the Harley Davidson thing big time. Had a lot of friends in a particular MC gang that will remain nameless. I eventually joined myself and was a full patched member for 5 or 6 years until I got married, had kids, started my Body Shops... whatever.

Anyway our major rival gang was the OUTLAWS... probably heard of them. Well they had this big guy, Bogus Butch, that was so nasty & overpowering people were scared to death of him. Well one day he was at the bar they hung out at punking this little local kid around over a game of pool. Pretty much threw this kid out on the street.

Anyway a while later when he was sitting at the bar his back to the door the kid snuck back in and put a bullet in his head. Didn't kill him but paralyzed him for life.

Moral: Never let yourself believe you are always in the right or have all the overwhelming force. Because it doesn't take the biggest guy in town... to put you down.

Power can led to abuse of power. But as long as you're negotiating and not shooting no one gets paralyzed.

 

[BigRob]

True but we have seen that there is a rise of anti-American sentiment in the overall Muslim world. Add to that the fact that even many of the countries in the region that we do appear to have a somewhat decent relationship with often have multiple agendas that are often not favorable to the West.

Diplomacy is an ongoing process in good times & bad for exactly these types of reasons.

Sure, every nation we deal with is always pushing an alternative agenda, that is just part of it. That said, many moderate Arab states view the US situation in Iraq as inherently tied to US credibility in the region. If the US bails on Georgia, bails on Iraq, etc etc, it will be hard for a nation like Saudi Arabia to continue to push the line of maintaining a somewhat decent relationship with the United States. They will instead look elsewhere for the protection that their monarchy demands. (aka China, Russia) This would be terrible for the US.

There's no doubt a strong country has to be able to back up it's "talk" with action. I think the question (the possible difference that we have) is what is the proper threshold for a highly committed very long term action such as invasion and long term take over & occupation.

I thought President Clinton's overall approach in Bosnia was a good one. And I respect General Collin Powell's doctrine of... military force if needed should be overwhelming from the start without long term occupations and a clearly defined exit strategy up front before going in.

I don't even know why Powell gets credit for this, he did not come up with that doctrine. It was the Weinberger Doctrine. That said, I agree, I think Rumsfeld's plan of a light military for all occasions simply will not work.

Yes but I think we disagree on what made them harder. I think if you go in with the idea that the US can and will be the World Police and force other countries to act as it sees fit... that's a huge strategic blunder. I'd call that the Bush blonder.

We need to go in knowing that we are the dominant power. Not go in knowing that we will cave on every issue.

President Clinton for what I think is a much better tactic had the goal of simply trying to keep people talking and not escalating their conflicts. This requires much less of a military and cost commitment on the part of the US and it tends to bring in more LONG TERM partners in terms of peace keepers.

Much like US politics in most every multinational conflict neither party is without fault. Jumping in too much on one side or the other can be a slippery slope. Hence I like the Clinton approach of stringing out talks and trying to build some personal relationships with both sides & each other.

The Clinton approach is all fine and dandy, but it did not accomplish much. The world had a high opinion of us and meanwhile North Korea went right on developing a bomb, Al Qaeda went right on plotting and attacking us and allies abroad.

The hope is that it becomes harder to want to kill a person that you've worked with than it is to kill someone you haven't really interacted with much at all.

Sounds fine, but a well trained military should be able to pull the trigger against anyone for the most part. Interaction would not have prevented 9/11, did not prevent a nuclear North Korea, etc etc.

 

[BigRob]

It depends on the conflict. In some cases the UN (and peacemaker forces) can be very useful. The old saying that no one should get too big for their britches is a life lesson to acknowledge.

We would not want to be thrust into a position where we were seen as such "our way or the highway bullies" that the rest of the world congealed around another major country. Or for that matter even a military merging of just a few other countries. Just Russia and China alone with their present day allies would put the US in a much, much worse position than we are today.

Military mergers mean little when we have the nuclear capacity that we do. Most peacekeeping missions I view as failures. In many cases they must be maintained forever.

Well Iraq was the counter balance to Iran in the region and the new Iraqi government is heavily tilted religiously in Iran's direction now... so they're glad.

And Saudi Arabia is quite upset. Someone will always be mad I suppose.

America is a single country... not the dictator of world policy?

We have the right to protect America from an immanent attack, retaliate for an attack or to repel an invasion, and we have alliances to protect various other weaker nations from attack... that's about all the "rights" we have overseas.

If protecting from attack means fighting a war, then that is what it means.

Because there has been cases of success and the avoidance in bloodshed through diplomacy. We saw that with many of the War Lords in Iraq. Killing people that truly believe they are in the right only creates martyrs & helps to create new generations of fighters.

I think the tribal strategy in Iraq will end in failure sadly.

Look at it this way. Say your family were all well known Klan leaders (example only). And say the Somali government put a hit on them and killed your mother & father because they were so against racism having themselves suffered in the past from the slave trade.

That act of violence would only harden your commitment to hate Somalis not better things in anyway whatsoever.

Sounds fine, but money often trumps that.

We just have a difference in approach. Mine is put one tenth of the money wasted in Iraq into real homeland security upgrades here at home and overseas bounties and targeting intel. This is all basically police & spy work.

The military part can then at a much, MUCH cheaper in both cost and loss of American life plus actually be more overall effective at what should be our goal... keeping Americans in America as safe as possible.

1/10 of the money spent on the Iraq War would have little impact for DHS effectiveness.

You're foolin' yourself if you don't think that there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people out there regardless of brand name that would support another 9-11 type of attack or worse. This isn't some Rambo movie where when they run credits the bad guys are all dead & defeated and the world is safe.

I agree there is always someone out to do us harm. That should not deter us from killing the ones we know about.

I think there is a threshold whatever that may be that when passed Israel will do the strike. That's the outcome I see happening.

Most people viewed enrichment as that threshold, that time has come and gone.

My family is just as dead or dying if one big nuke goes off in central Ohio as if ten do.

I can guarantee you that we have nukes in places that other countries have not identified and visa versa.

Exactly, which is why we need more missiles and better 2nd strike abilities and better defense shields.

A) That depends on the Nuke and the strike. It is quite possible to trigger a Nuke by a strike.

B) Even not fully detoated we're talking about thousands of weapons and their toxic contents released into the world environment... not to mention the ones that are actually launched delivering full payload.

C) Even if you know were something is... doesn't mean you can get there and destroy it before it's launched. A prepared launch only takes a few seconds to a few minutes.

Depends on the missile for the scenario you describe.

Also, with a good missile shield, you do not have to destroy it before it is launched.

And those are the ones you know of!

Russia has to declare all their nuclear stockpiles and submit to inspections under treaties that were signed. They have been pretty good about this.

Russia's postion... you put an 18' ladder up that could possibly break into our home... we'll focus on taking out your ladder. They may even for a more deturant effect creat a formal alliance with the very countries you wish to target making their standing even higher.

It's the time old... Your enemies enemy is my friend, scenario.

Russia puts up their ladder, why not instead of not only focusing on how to take it out, we put bars on the windows to negate the effect of their ladder.

WOW!... that's got to be tough right now. I'll be glad to see things change myself.

NOW TO MY BIKER STORY... which is really a story about seemingly overwhelming power v. outcome:

Back in the day after college I worked in a bike shop and got into the Harley Davidson thing big time. Had a lot of friends in a particular MC gang that will remain nameless. I eventually joined myself and was a full patched member for 5 or 6 years until I got married, had kids, started my Body Shops... whatever.

Anyway our major rival gang was the OUTLAWS... probably heard of them. Well they had this big guy, Bogus Butch, that was so nasty & overpowering people were scared to death of him. Well one day he was at the bar they hung out at punking this little local kid around over a game of pool. Pretty much threw this kid out on the street.

Anyway a while later when he was sitting at the bar his back to the door the kid snuck back in and put a bullet in his head. Didn't kill him but paralyzed him for life.

Moral: Never let yourself believe you are always in the right or have all the overwhelming force. Because it doesn't take the biggest guy in town... to put you down.

Power can led to abuse of power. But as long as you're negotiating and not shooting no one gets paralyzed.

I agree that we should selectively engage. But in a context of international relations, Bogus Batch (if he were the US) would be armed to the teeth and loaded down with kevlar and surrounded by guards. Sure people will take shots, but it will be less likely.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

​

I have been criticized for saying that I would not support Obama, our president elect. In the spirit of unity, I would like to show my support for Obama's conservative view of dropping the plan to impose taxes on oil companies.

This is a wonderful support of conservative views of taxation that are always successful. Hopefully Obama will go even further!

I'm somewhat amazed at all the things attributed to Mr. Obama. He's been called an atheist and a Muslim, a socialist, a commie, a liberal, a homosexual, and a liar. If he's a Muslim why is he going to continue the war like some here have claimed? I understand he's going to give America to the Jews, which is pretty odd for a Muslim. And now he's supposedly done something conservative even though he's not in office and can't really DO anything. I lived through 8 years of King George and I'm struggling with the recession he led us into just like everyone else, but I'm going to give Obama a chance and judge the man on his merits rather than all the stuff people say about him.