Just what we need,Libya:(

[Bud Williams]

Hugh, you are absolutly right...the US military can crush any enemy in a few weeks. We have air superiority, nukes, G-Bomb, and many other weapons that are still under wraps.



Maybe we should hand over the "World Police" title to the Chinese and India, they're the ones with billions people, issue them arms and let them go to town on the countries like Libya, Rhawanda, Iran and overwhelm them with millions of armed fighters. The UN can pay these people, like a dollar a day and things could get cleaned up in one quick hurry.



Then we could keep our troops home safe. probably even downsize our military, and get us out of countries around the world that do not want us there, but only want our dollars.

We don't have a need to be in most places around the world, we can strike from Whiteman AFB with B-2 bombers anywhere in the world....

 

[Kevin Lang]

Maybe we should hand over the "World Police" title to the Chinese and India, they're the ones with billions people, issue them arms and let them go to town on the countries like Libya, Rhawanda, Iran and overwhelm them with millions of armed fighters.

These countries have always had large populations, yet have been perpetually beaten and subjugated by far smaller forces, sometimes from "poorer" nations. China wasn't the Sick Man of Asia for nothing.



I understand that your proposal was facetious, but I can't see it having any plausibility. Nor do I like the implication of the USA issuing arms to foreign nationals.

the US military can crush any enemy in a few weeks. We have air superiority, nukes, G-Bomb, and many other weapons that are still under wraps.

probably even downsize our military

Those 2 quotes are at direct odds with each other. We can't downsize our military and retain military supremacy.

How many leaders would risk complete decimation of their infrastructure and financial security to make a political point of blowing up one or two buildings?

This idea assumes that terrorists are directly linked to a country. What if they aren't? If Al Quaida bombs another US building, who do we attack? Everyone? A particular country--if so, which one? If we bomb too many countries, other countries will take notice. I don't think America can stand against everyone else.



As has been established here, the US has total military supremacy in an open conflict. Therefore our enemies will never fight us in an open conflict, as long as we remain superior.



(Also, many leaders would risk "complete decimation" to take pot shots at us. Decimation is only the killing of one-tenth of a population. History tells us that gambling 1/10th of your infrastructure on a petty attack is nothing. Their gains could far outweigh their potential losses. Again, Argentina risked much more when it fought Britain in the 80s.)

 

[Tom Schindler]

Hugh,



Yes, I am done.



I agree, only those countries that want Democray will nation building be successful. Arab countries, like Iraq and Libya, have been in turmoil since the bible time and they will continue until the end of time.





Tom

 

[H D]

This idea assumes that terrorists are directly linked to a country. What if they aren't? If Al Quaida bombs another US building, who do we attack? Everyone? A particular country--if so, which one? If we bomb too many countries, other countries will take notice. I don't think America can stand against everyone else.

I think there would be some incentive to keep your crazies within your own country, then.

 

[Rick Kent]

I read an article that indicated we were thinking about arming the rebels in Libya as part of our strategy.



http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-US-May-Arm-Anti-Gaddafi-Rebels-And-Looking-At-Legality-After-UN-Resolutions-Sky-News-Learns/Article/201103415959909?lpos=World_News_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15959909_Libya%3A_US_May_Arm_Anti-Gaddafi_Rebels_And_Looking_At_Legality_After_UN_Resolutions%2C_Sky_News_Learns



The very next article was confirming how Al Quaida is actively fighting with the rebels.



So we are thinking about arming our enemies.....



I am sure they won't use those weapons against our troops as soon as they get the first opportunity.

 

[H D]

We've done this many times and every time we pay for it in American lives. I'm ashamed.

 

[Bill Barber]

And today the U.S is talking about a need to intensify OUR efforts so as to prepare the groundwork for other nato forces to take over,what a freakin joke.

 

[Kevin Lang]

I think there would be some incentive to keep your crazies within your own country, then.

Some argue that the countries are run by the "crazies", or that any and all of the citizens of these countries are called to become "crazies". Regardless, we currently "fight" an enemy who is transient and holds the governments in the regions where it operates in fear. The distant threat of 1/10th of Islamabad being destroyed in a possible US strike will pale against the immediate threat of the Al Quaida gun at his temple in the mind of the rural provincial head in Pakistan.



Right now the USA controls Pakistan, yet we still have movement of enemy forces between it and Pakistan.

And today the U.S is talking about a need to intensify OUR efforts so as to prepare the groundwork for other nato forces to take over

Time for the Curtis LeMay "bomb them into the Stone Age" plan of attack.



Then,

Then, let the useless U.N. jump in and set up governments to their liking.

And since we're on the UN, regrettably, we need to ensure that we get anything left in the bombed country that is worth anything. I wouldn't be so frustrated with Iraq if we had observed a distinct American advantage in oil & gasoline availability and thus price. Same thing with the minerals in Afghanistan and pharmaceutical opiates. We do all the work, and get nothing but a bigger deficit.

 

[H D]

The distant threat of 1/10th of Islamabad being destroyed in a possible US strike will pale against the immediate threat of the Al Quaida gun at his temple in the mind of the rural provincial head in Pakistan.

Why settle for 1/10? Spare as many lives as possible, but make sure they're starting over with brick making from water and mud. And make sure they're re-drilling those wells to even get to the water.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Why settle for 1/10?

Because I was riding your quote, and you used "decimate"...



Other than that, no reason. :banana:

make sure they're starting over with brick making from water and mud.

From some of the videos I've seen of Afghanistan, making bricks from mud & water is high technology over there.

 

[H D]

I think you know, but I didn't mean decimate in the strict 1/10 definition you provided.

 

[Kevin Lang]

I think you know, but I didn't mean decimate in the strict 1/10 definition you provided.

You're right, I did know that. I was being punctilious (read: a jerk) and making a lame attempt to mess around as 1/10th is the original definition of the term.



Regardless, I still concur with your sentiment.



Tonight the rebels claimed that they could make it all the way to Tripoli...if the USA provided 1-2 more weeks of "continuous aggressive airstrikes". If we're going to do that, we might as well bomb the lot of them.



These rebels are more and more pathetic the more I see of them. I saw one news clip where a young guy with a rifle climbed atop the burned out husk of a tank. He was dressed as though he just shopped at Hollister.



Because tight acid-treated jeans and a white leather belt are proper fighting attire.



The news also showed what it referred to as a "Rebel armored assault vehicle".



It was a Toyota truck, spray painted with a crappy rendition of the rebel flag, with a large gun mounted on the back, behind a piece or 2 of sheet metal "armor".



I made comparisons to Hungary's rebellion before. Hungary, I apologize. You guys actually tried. I'd bet that if we let 5 Government tanks go against a rebel "contingent", the tanks would win. Badly.

 

[H D]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Adpa5kYUhCA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Kevin Lang]

Joe Biden doesn't say things lightly? Good to know :rofl:



That flashback video is still hilarious, however I for one really don't want to have President Biden, so I'll mention something which can be said to undermine President Obama's blatant hypocrisy.



The Flying Tigers.



President approved, used government funds, but not approved by Congress. Technically the unit was formed before we were at war, to help a foreign nation combat an oppressive force that (at that time) had no "obvious" intent of coming to attack the USA.



While there are some minor differences--the Flying Tigers were technically mercenaries as opposed to Obama's brazen usage of current US soldiers, sailors, and airmen, the principles are the same.



The argument could be made, albeit thinly, that Libya is/was going to "attack" us. Sure it would be an argument founded on hypotheticals, semantics, and sophistries, but most political arguments are.



Though as President Clinton showed, impeachment does not mean deposition from office, so if we can give President Obama a public mar on his record, yet prevent Joe Biden from ascending to the Oval Office, I'm all for it. If impeachment followed by removal of both President Obama and then-President Biden could be assured, I'd cosign on that action too :haveabeer:

 

[Bud Williams]

Quote:

the US military can crush any enemy in a few weeks. We have air superiority, nukes, G-Bomb, and many other weapons that are still under wraps.



Quote:



probably even downsize our military

Those 2 quotes are at direct odds with each other. We can't downsize our military and retain military supremacy.

Manpower could be replaced by technology, we could downsize the troop numbers. we must fight wars to destroy the enemy.

Just like world war II, War is an ugly thing, it must be used the right way.

We have tried to "politically correct" wars in the past few conflicts.

I would have taken Qadaffi out by now.

If we risk our troops, we must fight to win.