The entire Western world would like to see Al Qaeda wiped off the face of the earth & should send appropriate amounts of troops in order to accomplish that goal. Obama should use some of that international credibility he's been building up to accomplish that, so we, the US of A, don't have to do most of the work nor pay most of the bill.
Otherwise, fuck it. Israel will eventually solve the problem for us.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Michael Moore on Afghanistan and Obama
Michael Moore on Afghanistan and ObamaFollow
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Omegavegeta wrote:
The entire Western world would like to see Al Qaeda wiped off the face of the earth & should send appropriate amounts of troops in order to accomplish that goal. Obama should use some of that international credibility he's been building up to accomplish that, so we, the US of A, don't have to do most of the work nor pay most of the bill.
While the entire Western world may want to see al-Qaeda annihilated, I feel it necessary to point out that al-Qaeda is not, strictly speaking, part of the Western world. Neither is most of the Middle East. In fact, most of the Middle East hates "the Western world", and with pretty good reason considering that they were bent over a table and viciously gang-raped by most of the Western world for nigh on a century.
Omegavegeta wrote:
The entire Western world would like to see Al Qaeda wiped off the face of the earth & should send appropriate amounts of troops in order to accomplish that goal. Obama should use some of that international credibility he's been building up to accomplish that, so we, the US of A, don't have to do most of the work nor pay most of the bill.
Otherwise, fuck it. Israel will eventually solve the problem for us.
Otherwise, fuck it. Israel will eventually solve the problem for us.
Assuming that your goal here is to eliminate Al Qaeda, what military force do you suggest to do the job instead of the US? Our defense budget is greater than the collective total of the defense budgets for every other nation on the planet. And we supplement that with another large segment of "defense budget not called defense budget" in independent contractor spending.
What other nation has the power and motive? And if you suggest that other countries should pitch in more than token forces, you run into some relatively large tactical and political barriers.
Edited, Dec 2nd 2009 3:13am by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
Quote:
While the entire Western world may want to see al-Qaeda annihilated, I feel it necessary to point out that al-Qaeda is not, strictly speaking, part of the Western world. Neither is most of the Middle East. In fact, most of the Middle East hates "the Western world", and with pretty good reason considering that they were bent over a table and viciously gang-raped by most of the Western world for nigh on a century.
And it's for that reason I think it's in the USA's best interests to let other people kill Al Quaeda for us. Hell, we're capitalists, I bet we can find someone else who can get it done for less. I hear Dubai needs $.
Quote:
Assuming that your goal here is to eliminate Al Qaeda, what military force do you suggest to do the job instead of the US?
I'd love to see more Middle Eastern countries lending forces and/or resources. Ideally Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Turkey, & Pakistan.
Quote:
What other nation has the power and motive? And if you suggest that other countries should pitch in more than token forces, you run into some relatively large tactical and political barriers.
Divide Afghanistan into sections akin to Germany post WW II (but no commies this time!) & assign different countries to secure each section. Push Al Qaeda from Afghanistan towards Pakistan while having the Pakistanis push AL Qaeda towards the border.
Carpet bomb the lot of em' & call it a day.
I'm usually pretty anti-war, but I really feel that as long as Bin Laden can keep running around mouthing off he's got a chance to at the very least inspire another 9/11 attack. Until he's killed or captured & Al Qaeda's balls are cut off, this war which they started in 2001 isn't over.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Timelordwho wrote:
Our defense budget is greater than the collective total of the defense budgets for every other nation on the planet. And we supplement that with another large segment of "defense budget not called defense budget" in independent contractor spending.
Hmmmm....thinking outside the box for a moment....Why does the US spend so much on its military? For defence? Hardly. Because as you point out the US is by far the toughst kid on the block. No nations are daft enough to pick a fight. So, all that spending is for....what? Offense perhaps? Empire building maybe. Spreading its influence to places its not welcome in pursuit of resources that people might not want to part with?? Probably.
And if that is the case, perhaps AlQaeda is a reaction to that belligerance?
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and all that.
Anyway keep on planning on how you can kill everyone who isn't American. I'm sure you're right.....After all most of the targets are brown or muslim or foreign or somesuch.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
Why does the US spend so much on its military?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Ok, let's do this in reverse:
All makes sense to me.
Quote:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and all that
Quote:
No nations are daft enough to pick a fight
Quote:
Why does the US spend so much on its military?
All makes sense to me.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Quote:
Because its the only industry left here.
Quote:
All makes sense to me.
War waged in far off lands against people who you've never met or been threatened by so that the rich can stay rich and the workers can keep working and the poor can go off to kill and be killed.
Glad it makes sense to you.
Sounds pretty fucked up to me.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
Glad it makes sense to you.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
While the entire Western world may want to see al-Qaeda annihilated, I feel it necessary to point out that al-Qaeda is not, strictly speaking, part of the Western world. Neither is most of the Middle East. In fact, most of the Middle East hates "the Western world", and with pretty good reason considering that they were bent over a table and viciously gang-raped by most of the Western world for nigh on a century.
And it's for that reason I think it's in the USA's best interests to let other people kill Al Quaeda for us. Hell, we're capitalists, I bet we can find someone else who can get it done for less. I hear Dubai needs $.
No kidding it's in our best interests to let other people kill people for us.
But the entire point is that is isn't in their best interests to do so.
If you think we haven't tried that strategy before, Saddam, dozens of central American dictators, assorted puppet dictatorships in the ME, and various paramilitary destabilization forces in Russia would like to have a word with you.
It works to a point. And that point is shockingly not towards peace.
Quote:
Quote:
Assuming that your goal here is to eliminate Al Qaeda, what military force do you suggest to do the job instead of the US?
I'd love to see more Middle Eastern countries lending forces and/or resources. Ideally Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Turkey, & Pakistan.
You still haven't told me why they are going to lend resources towards this.
You've just given them somewhere between no reason and negative reason.
Quote:
Quote:
What other nation has the power and motive? And if you suggest that other countries should pitch in more than token forces, you run into some relatively large tactical and political barriers.
Divide Afghanistan into sections akin to Germany post WW II (but no commies this time!) & assign different countries to secure each section. Push Al Qaeda from Afghanistan towards Pakistan while having the Pakistanis push AL Qaeda towards the border.
Carpet bomb the lot of em' & call it a day.
I'm usually pretty anti-war, but I really feel that as long as Bin Laden can keep running around mouthing off he's got a chance to at the very least inspire another 9/11 attack. Until he's killed or captured & Al Qaeda's balls are cut off, this war which they started in 2001 isn't over.
Edited, Dec 2nd 2009 7:47am by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
If you don't know who he is:
Edited, Dec 2nd 2009 7:46am by Timelordwho
Quote:
For worst military defeats, the hammering the Armenians got at the hands of Lucius Licinius Lucullus and his four legions seems to rate pretty highly. Over a hundred thousand troops on the Armenian side, possibly as high as 150,000, with everything from slingers to cataphracts, and yet when they fought those four legions, they were hammered outside of Tigranes' capital.
I think the dispatch back to Rome went something like this - 'Battle won - 100,000 Armenian dead, 6 Roman dead'. What is more, more of the enemy died from their own troops either crushing or trampling eachother as the front line halted against the Roman line and the back kept pushing, than died directly at Roman hands.
I think the dispatch back to Rome went something like this - 'Battle won - 100,000 Armenian dead, 6 Roman dead'. What is more, more of the enemy died from their own troops either crushing or trampling eachother as the front line halted against the Roman line and the back kept pushing, than died directly at Roman hands.
Edited, Dec 2nd 2009 7:46am by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
Omega wrote:
Until he's killed or captured & Al Qaeda's balls are cut off, this war which they started in 2001 isn't over.
Not a war
Not started by "they"
Not in 2001
***
And don't you ever make me do this again, but
tlw wrote:
Sorry, but your strategic and tactical genius is on par with the armenian army vs. Lucius Licinius Lucullus.
This
Edited, Dec 2nd 2009 8:14am by Pensive
Defeating Guerrillas is not impossible - even Algeria managed it. It just takes a long time to stamp out completely, compared to an army of similar size using conventional tactics.
Timelordwho wrote:
If you don't know who he is:
Quote:
For worst military defeats, the hammering the Armenians got at the hands of Lucius Licinius Lucullus and his four legions seems to rate pretty highly. Over a hundred thousand troops on the Armenian side, possibly as high as 150,000, with everything from slingers to cataphracts, and yet when they fought those four legions, they were hammered outside of Tigranes' capital.
I think the dispatch back to Rome went something like this - 'Battle won - 100,000 Armenian dead, 6 Roman dead'. What is more, more of the enemy died from their own troops either crushing or trampling eachother as the front line halted against the Roman line and the back kept pushing, than died directly at Roman hands.
I think the dispatch back to Rome went something like this - 'Battle won - 100,000 Armenian dead, 6 Roman dead'. What is more, more of the enemy died from their own troops either crushing or trampling eachother as the front line halted against the Roman line and the back kept pushing, than died directly at Roman hands.
You're only using this as an example because you like his name.
paulsol wrote:
Why does the US spend so much on its military? For defence? Hardly. Because as you point out the US is by far the toughst kid on the block. No nations are daft enough to pick a fight.
So once you have a strong enough defense that no one wants to fight with you, the answer is... stop spending money on defense? That makes sense.
Although I somewhat agree with you -- part of a strong defense is the ability to project power globally. Instead of saying "When we're attacked, we have enough guys to lock the gates and stay safe" you can say "When we're attacked, we have enough guys to lock the gates, stay safe and wait while the other guys we have go to their town and bust things up a bit." Makes for a better deterrent.
I was mildly surprised to learn that the US's budget, while largest in dollars, ranks only 28th globally as a percentage of GDP.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Timelordwho wrote:
Sorry, but your strategic and tactical genius is on par with the armenian army vs. Lucius Licinius Lucullus.
Slow down there, Dennis Miller.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Why does the US spend so much on its military? For defence? Hardly. Because as you point out the US is by far the toughst kid on the block. No nations are daft enough to pick a fight.
So once you have a strong enough defense that no one wants to fight with you, the answer is... stop spending money on defense? That makes sense.
Although I somewhat agree with you -- part of a strong defense is the ability to project power globally. Instead of saying "When we're attacked, we have enough guys to lock the gates and stay safe" you can say "When we're attacked, we have enough guys to lock the gates, stay safe and wait while the other guys we have go to their town and bust things up a bit." Makes for a better deterrent.
I was mildly surprised to learn that the US's budget, while largest in dollars, ranks only 28th globally as a percentage of GDP.
It's because the US is rich as well as bloodthirsty - kind of like a successful pirate.
Quote:
I was mildly surprised to learn that the US's budget, while largest in dollars, ranks only 28th globally as a percentage of GDP.
Why would you be surprised? Nations without lots of defense need more of it. Nations with lots of defense only want more of it. Just because our wants are so ludicrously gluttonous doesn't make the needs of other countries any less real. In fact, I'd think that our wants allow us to delude ourselves to such an extent that we forget what it is to actually need a military.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Why would you be surprised? Nations without lots of defense need more of it.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Why would you be surprised? Nations without lots of defense need more of it.
Well if you're a vassal of a strong power you're not exactly among those in need are you?
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Why would you be surprised? Nations without lots of defense need more of it.
You're relying on Pensive to defend you?
Well, you're basically going down.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Well if you're a vassal of a strong power you're not exactly among those in need are you?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
paulsol wrote:
Glad it makes sense to you.
Sounds pretty fucked up to me.
Sounds pretty fucked up to me.
George Carlin wrote:
But all that aside, let me tell you what I liked about that Gulf War: it was the first war that appeared on every television channel, including cable.
And even though the TV show consisted largely of Pentagon war criminals displaying maps and charts, it got very good ratings. And that makes sense, because we like war. We're a warlike people. We can't stand not to be fucking with someone. We couldn't wait for the Cold War to end so we could climb into the big Arab sandbox and play with our nice new toys. We enjoy war.
And one reason we enjoy it is that we're good at it. You know why we're good at it? Because we get a lot of practice. This country is only 200 years old, and already we've had ten major wars. We average a major war every twenty years, So we're good at it!
And it's just as well we are, because we're not very good at anything else. Can't build a decent car anymore. Can't make a TV set, a cell phone, or a VCR. Got no steel industry left. No textiles. Can't educate our young people. Can't get health care to our old people. But we can bomb the shit outta your country, all right. We can bomb the shit outta your country!
Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't we? That's our hobby now. But it's also our new job in the world: bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in your country? Tell 'em to watch the fuck out, or we'll goddamn bomb them!
Well, who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? In fact, can you remember any white people we ever bombed? The Germans! That's it! Those are the only ones. And that was only because they were tryin' to cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world.
Bullshit! That's our job. That's our fuckin' job.
But the Germans are ancient history. These days, we only bomb brown people. And not because they're cutting in our action; we do it because they're brown. Even those Serbs we bombed in Yugoslavia aren't really white, are they? Naaah! They're sort of down near the swarthy end of the white spectrum. Just brown enough to bomb. I'm still waiting for the day we bomb the English. People who really deserve it.
And even though the TV show consisted largely of Pentagon war criminals displaying maps and charts, it got very good ratings. And that makes sense, because we like war. We're a warlike people. We can't stand not to be fucking with someone. We couldn't wait for the Cold War to end so we could climb into the big Arab sandbox and play with our nice new toys. We enjoy war.
And one reason we enjoy it is that we're good at it. You know why we're good at it? Because we get a lot of practice. This country is only 200 years old, and already we've had ten major wars. We average a major war every twenty years, So we're good at it!
And it's just as well we are, because we're not very good at anything else. Can't build a decent car anymore. Can't make a TV set, a cell phone, or a VCR. Got no steel industry left. No textiles. Can't educate our young people. Can't get health care to our old people. But we can bomb the shit outta your country, all right. We can bomb the shit outta your country!
Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't we? That's our hobby now. But it's also our new job in the world: bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in your country? Tell 'em to watch the fuck out, or we'll goddamn bomb them!
Well, who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? In fact, can you remember any white people we ever bombed? The Germans! That's it! Those are the only ones. And that was only because they were tryin' to cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world.
Bullshit! That's our job. That's our fuckin' job.
But the Germans are ancient history. These days, we only bomb brown people. And not because they're cutting in our action; we do it because they're brown. Even those Serbs we bombed in Yugoslavia aren't really white, are they? Naaah! They're sort of down near the swarthy end of the white spectrum. Just brown enough to bomb. I'm still waiting for the day we bomb the English. People who really deserve it.
Edited, Dec 2nd 2009 9:39am by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Quote:
Defeating Guerrillas is not impossible - even Algeria managed it. It just takes a long time to stamp out completely, compared to an army of similar size using conventional tactics
Or atomics.
But realistically an iron triangle of peacekeeper/regional development, large scale intelligence & propaganda along with hunter-killer units does pretty well.
Just as Planned.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Well if you're a vassal of a strong power you're not exactly among those in need are you?
Erm, several of the top nations in GDP expenditures are reliant upon the US for military support.
Maybe it's... you know... just not that simple?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 83
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (83)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Michael Moore on Afghanistan and Obama
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC