Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JPhillips
Edward: Well we sure as hell won't get anywhere by lobbing nukes. There is no way that using a nuke first will be for the better of the USA. It may(but probably won't) make the ME safer for us, but you can't discount the effect on the rest of the world. The surest way to our being knocked off the top of the hill is using a nuke first.
What we do now is tricky. First we need to really focus on terrorism if that is our main threat. We get told one thing, but the QDR makes it clear that we are still focused on a large contry to country conflict. If terrorism isn't our main threat be honest about it. I'm personally not sure that terrorism is a bigger threat over the next three decades than China, but the admin tells us all the time that terrorism is the main problem.
We need a larger Army. If we're going to commit to long term occupations we need the troops to do it. Right now we really can't do anything much in Iran because we don't have troops free. I would love to add six divisions, but the admin is very reluctant to add any troops. All our fancy weapons are almost useless in insurgency combat and the only answer is more troops.
Devise and follow a plan for Iraq. Its clear to me that we are the focus of the problems in Iraq. I'm willing to admit that Iraq may fall into chaos without the U.S., but I'm convinced it will never be stable as long as we are a crutch for the Iraqi government. The government of Iraq, our supposed allies, have also stated that its fine for Iraqis to kill us. We can't stay in a country that sees us as the problem. We need to declare victory and start a phased withdrawal now before it really will look like we're running.
Our only long-term hope is to get out of the oil business. I don't know if that can happen, but I'll give Bush credit on finally pushing alternative fuels. I don't think we'll ever be friends with militant Islam so the answer is to stop relying on them for our way of life.
We're finally basing terrorism defense money on risk and that's well overdue. I wish the Homeland Security head had more ability to coordinate projects. I still think we're woefully unprepared for an attack.
I want those in the admin to be held accountable and not given medals. Right now loyalty trumps competence. We hire college students to hand out reconstruction money, have a CPA head that touts export tax relief as a major accomplishment, and have a Defense administration that has been wrong on almost every prediction and assumption. I thought this was supposed to be a new era of responsibility.
Finally, I don't think its possible to eliminate the risk of terrorism. Its just something that we'll have to do our best to limit. It helps a lot that we're so far away from the terrorists and I have to believe that the Arab countries can't hold off modernity forever. I generally believe the Bush rhetoric on democracy, but the election results in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq are worrying. What do we do if the militants win elections? Maybe having to be in charge will help mellow them.
What I'm sure of is that we can't kill everyone that doesn't like us. Its simply impossible. That, along with a real ignorance of WWII history, is why I called Kobeck a fool.
|
Nothing like getting personal to show you have lost touch huh?
I understand the historic signigance of the US bombing Japan into submission in WWII. I also know not only was it the most expedient way to end the war it was also the best way to end the war. I am defining best as the way that minimizes US/allied loses and maximises Japanese loses. There are a lot of Americans around today cause their grandfathers did not have to storm the beaches of Japan.
And in fact the US can kill everyone that it is necessary to eliminate. Now there is no painless and pretty way to do it, but it can be done if the will is there to do it.
Your outlook has been warped by 50+ years of silly anti-nuke rehoretic. Free your mind from that crap and you will see the nuke bomb as the tactical weapon with the strategic force that it is.
But I do agree that currently a bunch of the US antagonists are not worth dropping a nuke on, some of them are not even worth conventional weapons. For those foes there is only boots on the ground. US is currently in Germany and Japan and the US will be in Iraq and Afghanastain in 2040 cause that is just the way it goes. Came with the decision to go in to begin with ( I was against the Iraq invasion FWIW).
Just cause you hate Bush does not mean you have to hate the US strategically excersizing its power to protect US interests. Don't be scared, Americans do not approch the world from a position of fright and weakness. If you want a foreign policy based on giving a crap about the people you are gonna bomb then go to France.
And FWIF I am a veteran and I have children, I had family enlisted in every conflict since WWI, probably before but not positive. My point here is that although you might take some wierd comfort in believing that the US cannot defend itself, your attitude is not only wrong it sends the wrong message. If it takes the world being frightened about the next US move to secure the US future then so be it.