Treaty w/ russia...

[buckman]

The reason Obama gets away with the crap he does is that the people who voted for him are for the most part, too pompous and arrogant to admit they just might be wrong for once.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The reason Obama gets away with the crap he does is that the people who voted for him are for the most part, too pompous and arrogant to admit they just might be wrong for once.

Get's away with what? Working to make the world a better place?

-spence

[scottw]

"I'd like to buy the world a home...and furnish it with love...grow apple trees and honey bees and snow white turtle dove"

remember when Obama said " I'm not naive" ?.... he was lying then too...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Get's away with what? Working to make the world a better place?

-spence

All the while effin hard working Americans. I believe you are listening to too many old Beatle songs And what a beautiful world it will be.

[TommyTuna]

Originally Posted by spence

Get's away with what? Working to make the world a better place?

-spence

Kum bi ya messiah Obasm Kum bi ya..all together now sing it with me, drink the Kool aid, heads in the sand or your option up you own Arse. all together now.

As for your statement Iran & NorKo "not being able to project power" I think your one dimensional thinking should embrace the threat of asymetrical warfare in our hemisphere. It can be effective, see 9/11, Spain Transit, Kubar Towers etc for its use & results, sometimes quite effective. Chem/Bio weapons in the modern sense, not the WWI crap, have a very aggressive lethality and the skillset is available to steal, develop & deploy said weapons. Hmmm a highly agressive, high mortlality viral plague oh where can we find one.

Now here is a lesson in self defense and nuclear deterrent; strategic ambiguity - a very powerful weapon where the aggressor does not know if/when/how you-the victim(mark) would respond and use your nukes. Kind of like the " armed concealed carry citizen" who conceals his weapon and only demonstrates its usage as a last resort and does not broadcast his having one. Or go announcing it on every street cormer in a tough neighborhood(world); "don't you worry I will not use it unless XYZ happens.


And one from the "Godfather", Sonny, Come here. Whatsa matta with you, Never tell anyone outside the family what your thinking" No truer words have been spoken.


Where have you gone Gen. Curtis LeMay?

TT

[spence]

Originally Posted by TommyTuna

Kum bi ya messiah Obasm Kum bi ya..all together now sing it with me, drink the Kool aid, heads in the sand or your option up you own Arse. all together now.

Brilliant analysis. And I thought the Liberals were the touchy feely ones.

As for your statement Iran & NorKo "not being able to project power" I think your one dimensional thinking should embrace the threat of asymetrical warfare in our hemisphere. It can be effective, see 9/11, Spain Transit, Kubar Towers etc for its use & results, sometimes quite effective. Chem/Bio weapons in the modern sense, not the WWI crap, have a very aggressive lethality and the skillset is available to steal, develop & deploy said weapons. Hmmm a highly agressive, high mortlality viral plague oh where can we find one.

Asymmetrical warfare isn't very useful in projecting power as it typically requires a indigenous population with some good percentage that's either coercable or cooperative. It can be very effective when trying to repell or stall an offensive campaign, which is how we've almost always seen it used.

Could Iran project power using asymmetrical warfare to dictate the American position or take over our territory?

Not really.

Perhaps they could use it to irritate US interests, but only where the situation would allow it, usually an established defensive or perceived defensive front.

As for terror, if you think the bombings in Madrid or the African embassys were a "projection of power" then you must have a pretty weak view of what power really is. It's precisely because al Qaeda lacks the ability to project power that they've failed in their objective to establish a new Caliphate.

To project power you must be able to sustain and coordinate your efforts away your home. None of these enemies have the resources or relationships to do this effectively.

Now here is a lesson in self defense and nuclear deterrent; strategic ambiguity - a very powerful weapon where the aggressor does not know if/when/how you-the victim(mark) would respond and use your nukes. Kind of like the " armed concealed carry citizen" who conceals his weapon and only demonstrates its usage as a last resort and does not broadcast his having one. Or go announcing it on every street cormer in a tough neighborhood(world); "don't you worry I will not use it unless XYZ happens.

Nuclear deterrent has a lot more to do with MAD than it does spoken or written words. The recent shift in policy has everything to do with improving collaboration with those we're not going to nuke anyway, to increasing leverage against those who we see as real threats.

The issue of course is that building and using a nuclear bomb are dramatically different things.

This may look strange to you, it's called negotiation.

And I seriously doubt our spoken or written position on using nuclear weapons means much as a deterrent. Everybody knows we're not going to use them, except in the most dire of circumstances, and probably only if nuked ourselves. We simply have too many other viable options using conventional means.

So no, I don't think Iran or North Korea has much of an ability to project power now or will in the future. Given that, how we deal with their very real threats should be taken in context. This is the failure of Bush era policy during his first term. Treat every big issue as an existential threat to our survival you have very limited options. When reality further erodes those options down do nothing you're frozen.

And when you're not moving you can't steer.

-spence

[TommyTuna]

Originally Posted by spence

Asymmetrical warfare isn't very useful in projecting power as it typically requires a indigenous population with some good percentage that's either coercable or cooperative. It can be very effective when trying to repell or stall an offensive campaign, which is how we've almost always seen it used.

Could Iran project power using asymmetrical warfare to dictate the American position or take over our territory?

Not really.

This is the failure of Bush era policy during his first term. Treat every big issue as an existential threat to our survival you have very limited options. When reality further erodes those options down do nothing you're frozen.

And when you're not moving you can't steer.

-spence

Please oh please the "BLAME BUSH" cry ...really brilliant & precise/concise ...sheez get a new line, the crybaby & chief has worn that one down.

As for strategic thinking, Do not engage in this activity, your obtuse focus is detrimental to society at large.

indigenous pop...oh you mean homegrown terrorists..Have you ever been to Dearbornistan or noted some past events where some terrorists are US citizens??
Sometimes you have got to grab them by the belt and fight them close inorder to deny them the use of their strategic power...hmmm where does this come into play??

You should be flexible in your thinking of "projection of power" & its application and goal...

TT

[spence]

Originally Posted by TommyTuna

Please oh please the "BLAME BUSH" cry ...really brilliant & precise/concise ...sheez get a new line, the crybaby & chief has worn that one down.

As for strategic thinking, Do not engage in this activity, your obtuse focus is detrimental to society at large.

indigenous pop...oh you mean homegrown terrorists..Have you ever been to Dearbornistan or noted some past events where some terrorists are US citizens??
Sometimes you have got to grab them by the belt and fight them close inorder to deny them the use of their strategic power...hmmm where does this come into play??

You should be flexible in your thinking of "projection of power" & its application and goal...

TT

I love these threads that smoke out people's true colors. You have nothing constructive or useful to say and take great pride at denigrating fellow Americans becasue of their culture and religion.

Hell, even ScottW can manage an unintended point now in then.

Granted, 100 word cut 'n pastes will often do that

So nice.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Hell, even ScottW can manage an unintended point now in then.

Granted, 100 word cut 'n pastes will often do that

So nice.

-spence

you just made my whole day!!!

I only cut 'n paste to annoy JD

[TommyTuna]

Originally Posted by spence

I love these threads that smoke out people's true colors. You have nothing constructive or useful to say and take great pride at denigrating fellow Americans becasue of their culture and religion.

So nice.

-spence

Smoke out, hhmmm no smoke needed you display your colors (rainbow) in true foaming at the mouth liberal fashion and I am okay with that. As for you crying RACIST as per the liberal handbook to avoid the truth or evade being engaged in civil discourse which will reveal your agenda-you got that rule down pat- you got me, I'm done; no more rolling with the pig.

Bye
TT

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Get's away with what? Working to make the world a better place?

-spence

and this gets right to the point. His constitutional duty is to make AMERICA a better place!
it wont win you a noble peace prize but its his JOB!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

and this gets right to the point. His constitutional duty is to make AMERICA a better place!
it wont win you a noble peace prize but its his JOB!!

America won't be successful unless there's enough global stability to let our economic system work. We simply can't consume enough to continue to scale.

really? WHy? All they have to do is hide in a Mosque and the marines cant touch them or all they need to do parade civilan casualties on the news and the Marines will be paralyzed.

Because the US can project a lot of force when offensive force is desired. Hiding in a mosque is a tactical issue, we're talking strategy here.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

America won't be successful unless there's enough global stability to let our economic system work. We simply can't consume enough to continue to scale.


Because the US can project a lot of force when offensive force is desired. Hiding in a mosque is a tactical issue, we're talking strategy here.

-spence

and a US Marine invasion is a more threatening strategy than a nuclear deterant?
I think you need to compare Japan to Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

and a US Marine invasion is a more threatening strategy than a nuclear deterant?
I think you need to compare Japan to Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

You're comparring apples and oranges. Nuclear deterrants don't mean much to non-nuclear countries who know we're not going to use them.

We have demonstrated that the USA can topple just about any country at will, using conventional means and with limited (relatively speaking) collateral damage.

This is what terrified Iran in 2004, before the civilians effed up the occupation.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're comparring apples and oranges. Nuclear deterrants don't mean much to non-nuclear countries who know we're not going to use them.

So, then, maybe, we should "project" that we will use them instead of promising that we won't.

We have demonstrated that the USA can topple just about any country at will, using conventional means and with limited (relatively speaking) collateral damage.

Geez, I wonder how they got that impression.

This is what terrified Iran in 2004, before the civilians effed up the occupation.

-spence

Didn't the terrified Iran have a lot to do with the "civilians" effing up the occupation?

Since we haven't taken using nukes against Iran off the table if they continue with their nuclear program, does that mean that they'll be terrified into quitting it? And if cutting our nuclear armaments by a third inspires others to do so, why not go all the way--get rid of the entire cache?

[Nebe]

very true. Our Nukes are not taken seriously, while the threat of a suitcase nuke in the hands of a jhihadist can bring a country to it's knees. Why? Everyone knows we would never use ours agianst anyone, unless attacked by a legitimate enemy nation, but a few crazy jhihadists would

Originally Posted by spence

You're comparring apples and oranges. Nuclear deterrants don't mean much to non-nuclear countries who know we're not going to use them.

We have demonstrated that the USA can topple just about any country at will, using conventional means and with limited (relatively speaking) collateral damage.

This is what terrified Iran in 2004, before the civilians effed up the occupation.

-spence

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device