Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 7, 2004.
i wonder what happens when an entire military "breaks".
Smells like a pre-draft notice to me.
we've already contracted out as much work as we can. and we all know how well that's worked out. if the government doesn't want to "break" the military, they're going to have to reduce our obligations. shutting down some of our ~140 permanent bases around the world would help, but getting us the **** out of iraq would have the added benefit of saving more money, saving more lives, reducing tensions abroad, and reducing hatred and distrust of us in the middle east. bush and his cronies have really ****ed over the nation with this war. and his building of 14 permanent bases in iraq itself doesn't make it look like he's pulled his head out of his ass yet. is there a doctor in the house?
sorry - rant
First, we do need a draft. The military is streched really thin, but lets see. How did that happen? Is it the wars that we are fighting, or is it, the MASSIVE miltiary scale back during the Clinton years that have left us with not enough military manpower to fight two major wars at once. Now, I am not blaming Clinton, I think at the time he did the right thing, and the world no longer needed a military the size of the one we had. But now things are different. Terror is a global war. We are in WWIII like it or not, and no matter who gets elected in November, this isn't going to change.
Look at it this way. Clinton was the smoothest President ever, people loved him, he almost brought peace to the middle east. And yet, 9/11 was planned under Clinton, Trade towers attack number one happened under Clinton, the Cole happened under Clinton, Kenya, Tanzinia, etc.
Point isn't that it was Clinton's fault. Point is that no matter how we treat those in the middle east there will always be a radical sect that wants to kill as many of us as possible. So do we sit back an let them? Or do we kill them before they can kill us?
Or do we change or policies such that we don't HAVE to kill all of them? Can we modify our behavaior in such a way that we aren't making enemies faster than we can kill them? Can we act in such a way that we aren't 'giving in' to terrorists, yet still allowing them to save some face and say they got some of what they were after? IOW, is the only option total war or capitulation? Or is there a 3rd Path perhaps....
yea, but what is that way? What policy's? How do you change everything without reguard to our economy, way of life, etc? And even if you did, Clinton tried like hell to be good to that part of the world, and look what it got us.
You cannot reason with an unreasonable person, and remember these people are zealots of the worst kind.
Well like not invading the holiest sites outside Mecca and Medina for one!
IOW you see no choices between killing each and every terrorist that pops up or giving up and letting radical Islam rule the world?
I know, I know, zealots of the worst kind. There's just no reasoning with Dubya and Co. is there...
If we champion a long-term policy of maintaining good relations with the middle east and empathizing with their interests and concerns, then perhaps terrorism can be essentially eradicated as a viable means to express your dissatisfaction with the United States, at least in the Middle East.
For the short-term, a better strategy would be to get more CIA operatives on the ground, get more Arabic experts in our intelligence agencies, and have a National Security Advisor who knew more about the Middle East than a now-defunct communist regime.
You don't use a scoop to pick up a hair. We need more refined, targeted operations instead of sending hundreds of thousands in to topple entire governments while letting a good number of the individuals and groups we want to catch slip through the cracks.