Treaty w/ russia...

[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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

I believe Iran was intimidated by the ability of a limited US force to so quickly assert themselves in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly this was driven by civilian policy and executed by the military.

The same civilians also led the policy which didn't plan for the next day, and in this often differed from the advice of the Generals.

So yes and no.

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?

Probably not, hence my multiple comments above.

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?

I think we'd all agree that nuclear capability is important to maintain. We would also probably agree that excess nuclear stockpiles are harder to control and work against efforts for non-proliferation.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe Iran was intimidated by the ability of a limited US force to so quickly assert themselves in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly this was driven by civilian policy and executed by the military.

The same civilians also led the policy which didn't plan for the next day, and in this often differed from the advice of the Generals.

So yes and no.

Neither you nor I know if Iran was intimidated by US force, limited or otherwise. I would think they were more intimidated by a "democratic" Iraq even more than a Sadaam Husein Iraq. They were certainly bold enough to instigate and aid the "insurgents" that tried to destroy the democracy. The imperfect "civilians" may not have calculated that at first, but were flexible enough to change tactics. Such is war. No doubt, Obama is perfect and won't make any mistakes. As for apples and oranges, Bush faced a different world than Obama is facing now. Before his, what you consider, blunder, NOTHING of substance was being done to check an emboldening radical Islam. His "blunder" flushed out the rats and created a new face in the middle east. I believe that new face is the real threat to the Mullahs of Iran, not our nukes or marines. And the fence sitting royals of Saudi Arabia, etc. now must not only fear Al Quaeda influence in their population, but an even greater menace of democratic yearnings. If they are any students of history, I would think that they will prepare for some orderly democratization rather than a surrender to Iranian dominance.

I think we'd all agree that nuclear capability is important to maintain. We would also probably agree that excess nuclear stockpiles are harder to control and work against efforts for non-proliferation.

-spence

There is no way to erase the existence and knowledge of nuclear power. Even if all present stockpiles were eliminated, the knowledge is there for an "evil" presence to use it. So we would probably all agree (except for the dreamiest peace mongers) that we should maintain a strong nuclear capability. If Obama believes in, supports, maintains, and provides for a STRONG US military, in all phases, and continues to use that power in our interest, I have no quarrel with him in that respect. His mission to fundamentally change America is another matter. Our foundation is our strength. Please, leave that alone.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Neither you nor I know if Iran was intimidated by US force, limited or otherwise. I would think they were more intimidated by a "democratic" Iraq even more than a Sadaam Husein Iraq.

From what I've read it's been about the force. I think Iran knows pretty well how a democratic Iraq would behave. Considering the demographic alignment with their own people and culture, a democratic Iraq might actually be far more desirable than a Sunni dictator.

They were certainly bold enough to instigate and aid the "insurgents" that tried to destroy the democracy.

The insurgents weren't trying to destroy "democracy", they were mostly in a sectarian power grab and trying to settle old scores.

The imperfect "civilians" may not have calculated that at first, but were flexible enough to change tactics. Such is war.

The reporting on this is pretty clear. Rumsfeld wanted nothing to do with post invasion planning. The ideologues were convinced that their understanding of human nature was pure. Clearly nobody in charge bothered to study the founding fathers or pick up a history book.

No doubt, Obama is perfect and won't make any mistakes.

Non sequitur?

As for apples and oranges, Bush faced a different world than Obama is facing now.

True, the Dow was nearly 12,000

Other than that it's pretty much the same world, aside from little being done to curb North Korea or Iran.

Before his, what you consider, blunder, NOTHING of substance was being done to check an emboldening radical Islam. His "blunder" flushed out the rats and created a new face in the middle east.

And in the process convinced a huge number of mice that they were in fact rats!

The "new face" is more opposition to Western values. Is the world more or less democratic because of Bush's policies? Looking at Egypt, Russia, Iran etc... there's not a good story.

I believe that new face is the real threat to the Mullahs of Iran, not our nukes or marines. And the fence sitting royals of Saudi Arabia, etc. now must not only fear Al Quaeda influence in their population, but an even greater menace of democratic yearnings. If they are any students of history, I would think that they will prepare for some orderly democratization rather than a surrender to Iranian dominance.

There is no surrender of Sunni's to Iran. The US policy is firmly in the camp of Sunni Islam. al Qaeda influence is small at best and getting weaker. The real threat is from the more legitimate issues that al Qaeda also used to gain acceptance, and that other actors will also exploit to legitimize their own political ambitions.

is no way to erase the existence and knowledge of nuclear power. Even if all present stockpiles were eliminated, the knowledge is there for an "evil" presence to use it. So we would probably all agree (except for the dreamiest peace mongers) that we should maintain a strong nuclear capability. If Obama believes in, supports, maintains, and provides for a STRONG US military, in all phases, and continues to use that power in our interest, I have no quarrel with him in that respect.

Obama seems quite content to spend billions on defense and kill enemies at will. He's no pacifist...BTW the Left hates him for this.

His mission to fundamentally change America is another matter. Our foundation is our strength. Please, leave that alone.

It's not a surprise that conservatives would take issue with a remark like this. After all, conservatives are about conservation, change must be bad...if it's not broke, don't fix it...right?

Perhaps this was a mistake in it's ambiguity, it certainly left the tin foil hat crowd an opportunity to interpret it however they like. I think the Obama Administration has made this same mistake many times.

But Obama hasn't said anything that indicates he wants to "change" the fabric of America. Liberal and Conservative positions are all a part of who we are. A spirit of innovation and growth is a part of who we are.

-spence

[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