Just goes to show you how the idolatry displayed was completely misplaced. We have a ramped up drone program, Gitmo still exists, Afghanistan got it’s own version of the surge and Obama wants to station troops in Southeast Asia so we have a “presence” to display our military power. Reading the Chinese newspapers and their constant hacking our banks and government pretty well displays their lack of fear.
FWIW, read Bill Freeza’s article in the Huffington Post about scaling back the military, the resultant savings and redistribution of the “work force” involved.
Peace through force is great when:*a. We can afford it. Unfortunately, for the last 30 years, we’ve been borrowing to do it, and it is not sustainable.*b. The “enemy” backs down to the threat of “assured destruction”. Unfortunately, people driven by emotion and fanaticism often don’t respond logically to overwhelming force. Saddam certainly didn’t. And while he quickly lost that battle, our costs (human and financial) were much, much heavier than expected.
Obama should have closed Gitmo his first day. We should already be out of Afghanistan, and actually out of Iraq, not just our “combat troops”.
BUT! Using “tools” to take out individuals, or groups of individuals who actually ARE combatants, as opposed to carpet bombing the landscape, as in Afghanistan, also including blowing up caves that have been civilian homes for centuries, and"shock and awe" killing thousands of noncombatants, IS a sounder policy.
I don’t object to taking out genuine “bad guys”, in as simple, direct, and targeted means as possible, sorry, but a sniper, or even a drone, IS more selective, and “humane” than our reliance on massive air strikes to “overwhelm” an enemy, especially when it’s a scattered force of individuals.
Obama continues to follow Bush Policy while whining that everything is still Bush’s fault. Maybe Bush and Obama are following US State Dept policy. Civil Servant bureaucrats are the 4th branch of Government. (Remember the Star Wars example).
Wow, I hadn’t thought of this but it looks like we are just right on the edge of another assassination controversy. I seem to remember there was a law we passed prohibiting assassinating foreign leaders. I wonder how long it will be before they decide that is no longer practical?
MIckey: Al Qaeda members, and other terrorist groups as well are NOT “foreign leaders” as defined under law as representatives of a government. When snipers take down Taliban, or Al Qaeda in the field, is that also “assassination”?
Technlogy has indeed changed the “rules of war”, to include cyberwar, that can indeed lead to actual deaths, not just to computers or programs, or centrifuges.
Gypsy8 over 11 years ago
This is a slippery slope that will come back to haunt.
sw10mm over 11 years ago
Now they’re making the case to kill US citizens. Yay
ennui_rudy over 11 years ago
Don’t look up, Ima, the next drone may have your name on it.
dpbriley over 11 years ago
This one’s even better then Lisa Benson’s!LOL
pirate227 over 11 years ago
Peace through force.There, it explained to all of you uniformed.
Mickey 13 over 11 years ago
Just goes to show you how the idolatry displayed was completely misplaced. We have a ramped up drone program, Gitmo still exists, Afghanistan got it’s own version of the surge and Obama wants to station troops in Southeast Asia so we have a “presence” to display our military power. Reading the Chinese newspapers and their constant hacking our banks and government pretty well displays their lack of fear.
FWIW, read Bill Freeza’s article in the Huffington Post about scaling back the military, the resultant savings and redistribution of the “work force” involved.
Mneedle over 11 years ago
No, it was “I am sick of having laws……make me king”
Marty Z over 11 years ago
Peace through force is great when:*a. We can afford it. Unfortunately, for the last 30 years, we’ve been borrowing to do it, and it is not sustainable.*b. The “enemy” backs down to the threat of “assured destruction”. Unfortunately, people driven by emotion and fanaticism often don’t respond logically to overwhelming force. Saddam certainly didn’t. And while he quickly lost that battle, our costs (human and financial) were much, much heavier than expected.
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
Obama should have closed Gitmo his first day. We should already be out of Afghanistan, and actually out of Iraq, not just our “combat troops”.
BUT! Using “tools” to take out individuals, or groups of individuals who actually ARE combatants, as opposed to carpet bombing the landscape, as in Afghanistan, also including blowing up caves that have been civilian homes for centuries, and"shock and awe" killing thousands of noncombatants, IS a sounder policy.
I don’t object to taking out genuine “bad guys”, in as simple, direct, and targeted means as possible, sorry, but a sniper, or even a drone, IS more selective, and “humane” than our reliance on massive air strikes to “overwhelm” an enemy, especially when it’s a scattered force of individuals.
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member over 11 years ago
Obama continues to follow Bush Policy while whining that everything is still Bush’s fault. Maybe Bush and Obama are following US State Dept policy. Civil Servant bureaucrats are the 4th branch of Government. (Remember the Star Wars example).
Mickey 13 over 11 years ago
Wow, I hadn’t thought of this but it looks like we are just right on the edge of another assassination controversy. I seem to remember there was a law we passed prohibiting assassinating foreign leaders. I wonder how long it will be before they decide that is no longer practical?
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
MIckey: Al Qaeda members, and other terrorist groups as well are NOT “foreign leaders” as defined under law as representatives of a government. When snipers take down Taliban, or Al Qaeda in the field, is that also “assassination”?
Technlogy has indeed changed the “rules of war”, to include cyberwar, that can indeed lead to actual deaths, not just to computers or programs, or centrifuges.
Gypsy8 over 11 years ago
I’d head for the bunker!