[quote]kamui wrote:
My point is that US bombs repeatedly failed to spread liberty and democracy.[/quote]
Which is why it isn’t worth it. Our policy should be one of having a VERY high threshold when it comes to using military force. However, once we have crossed that threshold, we should annihilate our enemy (unless he surrenders in the short time he has managed to stay alive). We should use as little force as needed, but also as much as needed. Then we come home and let the survivors build their own bridges and schools. Rinse and repeat as needed. Not a dime to reconstruction.[/quote]
How high is this threshold?
If Pyongyang threatens to nuke Hawaii, do we retaliate?
If Pyongyang nukes Seoul, do we retaliate?
If Pyongyang nukes Japan, do we retaliate?[/quote]
[quote]kamui wrote:
My point is that US bombs repeatedly failed to spread liberty and democracy.[/quote]
Which is why it isn’t worth it. Our policy should be one of having a VERY high threshold when it comes to using military force. However, once we have crossed that threshold, we should annihilate our enemy (unless he surrenders in the short time he has managed to stay alive). We should use as little force as needed, but also as much as needed. Then we come home and let the survivors build their own bridges and schools. Rinse and repeat as needed. Not a dime to reconstruction.[/quote]
How high is this threshold?
If Pyongyang threatens to nuke Hawaii, do we retaliate?
If Pyongyang nukes Seoul, do we retaliate?
If Pyongyang nukes Japan, do we retaliate?[/quote]
Yes.
No.
No.
England-No.
Germany-No.
You get the idea.[/quote]
So the agreements we made as part of NATO would no longer be considered valid, We’re no longer considering our promise of military assistance to Japan, we’re no longer interested in preventing the takeover of Korea by communists, and I forgot to ask but I’m guessing we probably wouldn’t interfere if Red China invaded small island China.
By extension, we’d probably stop funding the World Bank and the IMF. If we’ve accepted a level of isolationism that would require us to retreat from our military promises, we’d probably drop the financial ones as well. And we’d probably withdraw from the UN. NTTAWWT.
So the agreements we made as part of NATO would no longer be considered valid, We’re no longer considering our promise of military assistance to Japan, we’re no longer interested in preventing the takeover of Korea by communists, and I forgot to ask but I’m guessing we probably wouldn’t interfere if Red China invaded small island China.
By extension, we’d probably stop funding the World Bank and the IMF. If we’ve accepted a level of isolationism that would require us to retreat from our military promises, we’d probably drop the financial ones as well. And we’d probably withdraw from the UN. NTTAWWT.
So the agreements we made as part of NATO would no longer be considered valid, We’re no longer considering our promise of military assistance to Japan, we’re no longer interested in preventing the takeover of Korea by communists, and I forgot to ask but I’m guessing we probably wouldn’t interfere if Red China invaded small island China.
By extension, we’d probably stop funding the World Bank and the IMF. If we’ve accepted a level of isolationism that would require us to retreat from our military promises, we’d probably drop the financial ones as well. And we’d probably withdraw from the UN. NTTAWWT.
Is this true as well?[/quote]
It’s like you’re inside my head, man![/quote]
We probably would never make another trade agreement, we would no longer honor the ones we have, we would never engage in the sort of coordinate monetary policy like we did in late 2008 with central banks in Europe and China, we would have no international authority to bear greivances over (currently illegal) export dumping and obscene tariffs, and if war ever broke out anywhere, we could safely ignore it, because the meddlesome Europeans would value the self-determination of the Americas as expressed in the Monroe doctrine.
We probably wouldn’t even bother having ambassadors. It’d be like the gilded age, all over again.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, if Germany was harboring them, yes. “Oh geeze, they maintain an asymmetrial force. Well, we can’t do anything!”
A month? Well, if that’s how long it took them to pull off a succesfull attack, sure. But, I seriously doubt it. [/quote]
Nice to see Hamburg go down in poisonous flames because of a handful of radicals. Germany wil be eternally greatful.
Just pray the next terrorists won’t be from Texas.
But I don’t know if playing in & out with the world’s most expensive military is a worse policy. It is certainly spending-wise.
The mujahedin’s laughter will echo in their caves if all they have to do is sacrifice one soldier every now and then to make you spend Billions for nothing.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Nice to see Hamburg go down in poisonous flames because of a handful of radicals. Germany wil be eternally greatful.
Just pray the next terrorists won’t be from Texas.[/quote]
H-A-R-B-O-R-I-N-G
For nothing? Did you miss the part about killing them?
Now, now. If you have no ideas, your criticism is rightfully ignored.
[quote]Otep wrote:
We probably would never make another trade agreement, we would no longer honor the ones we have, we would never engage in the sort of coordinate monetary policy like we did in late 2008 with central banks in Europe and China, we would have no international authority to bear greivances over (currently illegal) export dumping and obscene tariffs, and if war ever broke out anywhere, we could safely ignore it, because the meddlesome Europeans would value the self-determination of the Americas as expressed in the Monroe doctrine.
We probably wouldn’t even bother having ambassadors.
It’d be like the gilded age, all over again.[/quote]
yeah, the gilded age t’would be…
which means 19th century living comfort for all the former states of north america.
Will be hard to go from a 50 inch plasma to a McGyver type radio. "I found a piece of wire, dad!
Great, son, go tell your mom we’ll never be hungry again!
I would feel bad for you but also for me, trying to memorize all this chinese characters…
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Nice to see Hamburg go down in poisonous flames because of a handful of radicals. Germany wil be eternally greatful.
Just pray the next terrorists won’t be from Texas.[/quote]
H-A-R-B-O-R-I-N-G
[/quote]
I tell you, we certainly did pamper them more then Afghanistan ever did with all this easy student money and practically free housing.
For nothing? Did you miss the part about killing them?
[/quote]
Right, silly me. You will kill them all. And find Bin Laden. And fly to Eris and back just for the heck of it.
How will an army that’s a few weeks in the field accomplish anything?
Is it just special forces or superheroes? Tell us about this superarmy!
[quote][quote]
And leave you with empty hands?
[/quote]
Now, now. If you have no ideas, your criticism is rightfully ignored.[/quote]
Look, just tell us why you’d actually manage to do all this.
Just wishing for a superarmy that somehow shoots the bad guys, fixes everything and heads back to catch the whorld series in time is every general’s dream anyway.
And decide wether it’s a field army or nukes you want to seek vengeance with.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Nice to see Hamburg go down in poisonous flames because of a handful of radicals. Germany wil be eternally greatful.
Just pray the next terrorists won’t be from Texas.[/quote]
H-A-R-B-O-R-I-N-G
[/quote]
I tell you, we certainly did pamper them more then Afghanistan ever did with all this easy student money and practically free housing.
For nothing? Did you miss the part about killing them?
[/quote]
Right, silly me. You will kill them all. And find Bin Laden. And fly to Eris and back just for the heck of it.
How will an army that’s a few weeks in the field accomplish anything?
Is it just special forces or superheroes? Tell us about this superarmy!
[quote][quote]
And leave you with empty hands?
[/quote]
Now, now. If you have no ideas, your criticism is rightfully ignored.[/quote]
Look, just tell us why you’d actually manage to do all this.
Just wishing for a superarmy that somehow shoots the bad guys, fixes everything and heads back to catch the whorld series in time is every general’s dream anyway.
And decide wether it’s a field army or nukes you want to seek vengeance with.[/quote]
Well, you just talked yourself into a corner. Now you either have to support iron-fisted and long term occupation, or everyone knows you’re just being contrarian.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I tell you, we certainly did pamper them more then Afghanistan ever did with all this easy student money and practically free housing.[/quote]
If…you…harbor…Al Qaeda… Why is this a difficult concept?
False argument.
Didn’t say that. False again.
False again.
False…again.
[quote]
Sloth:
Now, now. If you have no ideas, your criticism is rightfully ignored.
Sloth, you can’t just assert anything by dreaming it up.
Build a complete argument!
For instance:
One could say Germany harboured terrorists. Or not.
That IS the question here.
Did they harbour them? You tell ME, please. Threshold crossed?
Then present your solution.
Same with Afghanistan:
Just proclaiming your army would deal decisively with the Taliban is wishful thinking.
From all we know unless you have new strategy in mind, just “dealing with them” will produce dick.
You go home, the hydra’s head regrows.
Like with Hamburg, tell us straight: after 9/11 , would you have launched some nukes.
If so, where to? Some “caves”, Saudi Arabia? (where the money trail leads to), the Kaaba? (guilty by association), all of Pakistan (no idea why, just trying to understnad you)?
And be generally more precise: annihilate means nuking? Or deploying the men?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Sloth, you can’t just assert anything by dreaming it up.
Build a complete argument![/quote]
Huh? So far I’m the only one offering anything. Maybe I’m confused and the Roman enslavement thing is what you support.
[quote]For instance:
One could say Germany harboured terrorists. Or not.
That IS the question here.
Did they harbour them?[/quote]
I had thought this was an obvious ‘no’… Germany investigates and arrests potential terrorists. You asked about a scenario where, like the Taliban, Germany PROTECTS them.
If we’re back to a hypothetical Germany harboring our enemy, yes.
Take it up with whoever said that.
And? We’ll be going home anyways, with this longer term occupation failing.
Already said no to nuking. Conventional means are more than enough. Deploy men? Whatever it takes. But they wouldn’t be sticking around to oversee the building of bridges, hospitals, and etc.
But, enough about me. I can only assume you support a LOOOOOOONG term military occupation. Correct?
Germany goes of the hook. Great!
Afghanistan, who’s crime was to provide housing and space -strike that- I mean caves and deserts gets to be visited by a legion of angry young men with obscenely powerful weapons.
I think we’ve seen this before, haven’t we?
The only difference is, your killers would be pressed for time.
Given all the data you have, the scientists in my basement told me you’d accomplish…dick.
Sloth, help me here!
Obviously, there is some magic ingrediant that makes your legions SO much more effective at eliminating the enemy then the countless invaders who have been repressed by the hindukush’s rough charm.
Please don’t hold it back! What is it?!
btw, I seldomly say what I support directly. If you ask me, I’d say a healthy dose of forbearance will deal better with islamo-facism (god I love this word ´v` ) then invading troops.
That, and focusing on culture and education.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Ok, so I did understand you correctly.
Germany goes of the hook. Great!
Afghanistan, who’s crime was to provide housing and space[/quote]
Yep.
So?
Why bother inserting something like this?
[quote]Sloth, help me here!
Obviously, there is some magic ingrediant[/quote]
There is?
I’m not interested in holding and taming terrain.
Let’s stop stalling here. Your plan is to not have one. To do nothing. To stand paralyzed, outside of criticizing those trying to do something in the real world. In short, your plan is to reward asymmetrical and terroristic warfare. Paralysis. Hand wringing self-hatred. “Gosh, no uniforms. No claims to national support. Completely untouchable. We’re stuck not being able to do a damn thing. We’ve got to get our hands on this technology!”
Imagine if we could superimpose uniforms over a group of Taliban and/or Al Qaeda fighters.
Uniformed image: “Ok, we can bring the fight to them now!”
Flash the non-uniformed image: “Oh, no, wait. Nothing we can…Oh, oh, there’s the uniforms again, attac…Damn it, no uniforms again?”
Who knew the western world could be so easily tricked. We’re like Elmer Fudd in a Bugs friggen Bunny cartoon.
Talk about magic ingredients…
Yeah. The Schwarzie school of Kumbaya would last about 5 seconds in Taliban controlled Afghanistan before going up in flames. Your cultural center should have a nice high arch on it. At least, somewhere conducive for the hanging of it’s employees. Maybe the Taliban could stack some books up as a make-shift chopping block, from which the sales associates of your sponsored book store can be relieved of their heads.