Battlefront.com Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Clavicula_Nox. There are a lot of things we could be doing, and some things we are doing that could be done better. Capture/Kill is only one of those things, and not necessarily the best of them. Well said. Right now, *they* are playing to their strengths and our weaknesses, while we are consistently playing to their strengths. We shouldn't be deploying armored brigades, we shouldn't be deploying artillery batteries, and our mechanized assets should be limited keeping the borders sealed, with a reserve set aside for contingencies. Also, well put. Being in the military you know the folly of continually doing what the enemy wants you to do The truth of the matter is, Taliban and AQ loves it when we send a Hellfire into Pakistan even if we kill nobody but bad guys (which is, unfortunately, not often the case). Gives the local bad guy recruiters yet another example of why someone should strap a bomb to their bodies and go over the border into Afghanistan or, perhaps, go to a US owned business (like a hotel) within Pakistan and detonate. The primary way we need to be engaging the population is through dismounted actions emphasizing a positive role in their lives. This is one area in which we have gotten quite a bit better, but there is always room for improvement. Yup! The problem at first was that the various bad guys (not all AQ, that's for sure) knew this and basically made sure doing low key dismounted ops wasn't practical. It's becoming practical again and that's a good sign. Civil Affairs, Psy Op, MI, and Special Forces are the leaders of the fight, everyone else should be supporting their missions. A few years ago I met a SF PsyOps Major who had just come back from Iraq. That is one guy I do not want inside my head Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Well Steve, I'm not in anymore, but there is a lot that can be learned by simply reading some old accounts of counter-insurgency campaigns, as well as reading the memoirs of former insurgents. It's saddening to me to know that it took us over 2 years before we even began to seal Iraq's borders when that is the first thing you should do in counter-insurgency. The entire Phase IV for Iraq would be comical if it didn't have such catastrophic consequences; alls I can say is thank God for Dave Petraeus... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 meade95. At work at the moment but plan to get back with you later tonight - Your post if full of false notions, half-truths and strawman throughout - Name one. And what don't you get about establishing the true notions/ values of freedom and self-worth in the heart of the ME.. Of course this is one of the root causes. It's a HUGE root cause. But you can not change a couple thousand years of culture with even the smartest JDAM in our arsenal. You also can't introduce freedom and self-worth to people who are ruled by totalitarian regimes which exist almost exclusively because of US tax Dollars. Furthermore if some guy is raping my neighbor.....I really don't care about the root causes (and neither does the victim) more so than they care about the police showing up and killing or capturing the guy doing it........ Sure, but to say that stopping that one rapist is going to make the world safe from rape is just nonsense. But that is off topic somewhat........More later tonight and you are dead wrong about oil across the board. From how long it would take to actually get if there were REAL economic insentives to do so.....to what quanitites are actually out there....to what effect it would have on other oil producing nations......(and wasn't it those on the LEFT saying 10 years ago, that we didn't need access to these oil reserves because it would take 10 years.....hmm, sure would have helped the past couples years now wouldn't it). I'm dead right. BTW, did you catch the interview with oil tycoon T Boon Pickens on 60 Minutes last night? Oddly enough, he said the same things I just said about domestic oil. But Hell, he's only one of the most successful oilmen in history... so what the heck does he know. meade95, spouting off political ideology is at the heart of the problems our nation faces today. You can not shout down reality with political dogma. You can not both support the military and then ignore them when they tell you the truth about their own limitations. That's what got us several thousand dead US citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan. Listen to the people who know what they are talking about instead of those who have a political agenda to push. Personally, I have no political agenda. I just want the problems we face fixed as best they can and I think the parties of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb are not going to do that. OK, so I guess I do have a political agenda... I think all our politicians should be fired and replaced by people who know what the Hell they are doing. Fat chance that will happen Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Clavicula_Nox, Well Steve, I'm not in anymore, but there is a lot that can be learned by simply reading some old accounts of counter-insurgency campaigns, as well as reading the memoirs of former insurgents. But they are all written by mental masturbators Seriously though, of course this is absolutely correct. I'm rereading "Tactics of the Crescent Moon" right now, written by H. John Poole (a guru, with one of the most interesting Marines backgrounds in the history of the Corps!). I think meade95 would benefit from reading even one book, so I'd suggest this one to him. It's saddening to me to know that it took us over 2 years before we even began to seal Iraq's borders when that is the first thing you should do in counter-insurgency. The entire Phase IV for Iraq would be comical if it didn't have such catastrophic consequences; alls I can say is thank God for Dave Petraeus... And Army and Marines officers like him that set the stage. Ramadi was an early success story in the change of ops, for example. The whole problem was, of course, that the civilian leadership was horribly naive, woefully unprepared, and extremely incompetent on top of it all. Any one of those three things can kill success, but having all three of them operating at the same time basically assured us that we'd be in the mess we're in. The fact that we might still be able to salvage something in Iraq is only due to sensible leadership being reestablished within the military and on the civilian side. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Personally, I have no political agenda. I just want the problems we face fixed as best they can and I think the parties of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb are not going to do that. OK, so I guess I do have a political agenda... I think all our politicians should be fired and replaced by people who know what the Hell they are doing. Fat chance that will happen I call this Operation: Cleansweep. Fire all Incumbents in November! Chuck Baldwin! Freeeeeeeeedoommmm!!!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 "Tactics of the Crescent Moon" right now, written by H. John Poole Ah, I'm reading one of his right now, too "Militant Tricks" it's a very good read. Another I would recommend is "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq" And Army and Marines officers like him that set the stage. Small unit leadership is crucial, but we are fortunate to have him in one of our Big Chairs, though I wonder what level he can influence both Iraq and Afghanistan from CENTCOM. I find it ironic that his Iraq replacement, Odierno, was commander of the unit (4th ID) with the worst performance record in 2003, while Petraeus (101st) had the best. Yay Congress! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 meade95. Sure, but to say that stopping that one rapist is going to make the world safe from rape is just nonsense. Well,first I never really said that was the full premise.....but to your point above.... it sure in hell does make the world safer from THAT rapist...and that in and of itself is a net positive - The notion that capturing or killing real bad guys creates more of them is warped thinking wrapped up as trying to be the smartest guy in the room.....(a la, why you see plenty of "experts" touting such......thus the commonness of common-sense is what they avoid/hate acknowledging).......And reality is evil people don't need excuses...they will create them if need be..... Fact is, by and large people do respond to incentives or decentives....this includes terrorists....and if doing XYZ will get you dead...at some point you're going to stop dong XY&Z (or at least so in larger numbers)......and if they don't....then they are just evil SOBs at heart that have earned a bullet to begin with.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 meade95, You can not force someone to love. Which is why most counter terrorism experts agree that military intervention, on a grand scale at least, is usually counter productive. The invasion of Iraq was an AQ recruiter's dream gift. The CIA is just one of the organizations fighting terrorism that agrees with the truth in that statement. Having said that, avoiding military conflict can have equally bad results. Which is why the counter terrorism experts emphasize other solutions. Unfortunately, the solutions require economic compromises that people don't want to accept. The probable fact that the economic cost of war and counter terrorist security is greater than the sacrifices being proposed makes no headway. Americans, in particular, have a very shortsighted "how does this affect me today" attitude. Which is why our economy is where it is right now. Short sighted thinking always leads to short sighted goals which in turn lead to short lived positive results. Steve The same CIA that missed the fall of the USSR?? The same CIA that gave POTUS the "slam-dunk WMD" assuracne? The reality is since the war in Iraq / removal of Saddam.... more on the muslim street are turning against AQ/ and their mimics. Polls throughout the ME show this..... It was a boom for recruiting in the short-run.....but a majority of those recruits are all dead now. A whole segment of a generation is gone....dead. Years and years of terrorist leadership is likewise captured or dead...... These results are a net positive for the world. The dirty secret was.....it was AQ who could not fight an effective multi-front war....not us..... We have done so, and done so damn well by most reasonable measures. Of course there are mistakes or wish-I-could-do-that-one again type situations/events.........But on the whole any notion that AQ and their mimics are better off today than in 2001 is ridiculous.... Or that Stan/Iraq are worse off today is beyond foolishness..... The world is better off with Saddam gone. The world is better off with the Taliban out of power.....The world is better off with ten's of thousands of AQ/ their mimics / anti-West foot soliders in the ground....... The world is better off with elections, with high voter participation taking place in Iraq and Stan......The world is better off and the root causes of hate in the ME are finally seeing an alternative with the values of freedom and self-worth being seen and taking root for the first time in this region in recent memory......With us, the U.S and allies standing beside / with... seeing these new Gov't's stand fully up. And no, I just don't agree with you on this one..... we do not need to change our way of life for those in the ME. Again, that (IMO) is circle-jerk smartest guy in the room thinking that only comes out of the unreality-world of academia..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I haven't read this whole thread so forgive me if I say something that's already been said. Regarding Iraq, I remember thinking within days of 9/11, the US should just park a big army somewhere in the desert and put up signs saying, "if you hate America, here we are - why not take a pop at us?" It would give the America-haters a nice juicy target to attack that wasn't in downtown New York and it would give the US a chance to kill them. Everybody wins! Well, it seems some advisor to President Bush had the same idea, because what has Iraq been if not a sandbox for the US and its opponents to fight it out? Unfortunately a lot of innocent Iraqi's were maimed or killed as a result. "When the Elephants fight, the grass gets trampled", as they say. It's a sick world all right. As for the raids into Pakistan and now Syria, it seems to me that some advisor (perhaps the same one as above) has whispered into Bush's ear, "hey, you've only got weeks left of your presidency, so why not kick some ass over in Pakistan and Syria? We don't have an election to win, and anything we do won't be blamed on the next incumbent, so let's party!". In case this sounds like I'm some sort of anti-American myself - far from it. I just think this is the way the world works. When Britain was the most powerful country on Earth, we behaved a lot worse! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 meade95. I'm dead right. BTW, did you catch the interview with oil tycoon T Boon Pickens on 60 Minutes last night? Oddly enough, he said the same things I just said about domestic oil. But Hell, he's only one of the most successful oilmen in history... so what the heck does he know. Steve You mean T Boon Pickens who is looking to make billions off going with his new alternative energy business? No, he doesn't have a dog in this fight now does he......Of course he wants Gov't mandates forcing the public to go his route......That is just smart business. Why the hell do you think Warren Buffett is so rich and constantly in support of Gov't. Because he made the majority of his billions off Gov't directly or off Gov't mandates (thus indirectly). And your notion that it will take 10 years to bring more oil in from off shore sites is flat out wrong. As is the notion that it would take 10 years from ANWAR. If Congress would wake up and get serious about energy......and there were real economic incentives for drilling and bringing that oil to market....it would be done in half that time (from ANWAR) and even less than that from places off shore..... If companies knew they could bring that product to market for a profit..... Again, the same tired notions that it would "take 10 years" is the same old notion that was used 10 years ago.....hmm? Additionally, oil is a speculative market.....The reality that the U.S. was going to allow our marketplace to search for and bring to market our own oil supplies would take all the speculative push out of a barrel of oil (pushing prices down) and also we woud see an increase in production across the globe by oil producers (further keeping prices down, even with increases in consumption). Anyway......Good discussion Steve and best regards, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Regarding Iraq, I remember thinking within days of 9/11, the US should just park a big army somewhere in the desert and put up signs saying, "if you hate America, here we are - why not take a pop at us?" It would give the America-haters a nice juicy target to attack that wasn't in downtown New York and it would give the US a chance to kill them. Everybody wins! Well, it seems some advisor to President Bush had the same idea, because what has Iraq been if not a sandbox for the US and its opponents to fight it out? Unfortunately a lot of innocent Iraqi's were maimed or killed as a result. "When the Elephants fight, the grass gets trampled", as they say. It's a sick world all right. And there is some real strategic sense to this type of "simple" thinking. Iraq was the venus-fly-trap war....where our enemies found themselves in.....a la, too late..... All you have to do is read the intercepts that are being released (or the islamic websites themselves) where AQ and their ilk are speaking of how they have lost in Iraq...and how it turned out to be a terrible blunder for THEIR cause.....how much they have lost in lives and resources and what a waste it turned out to be.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 ... "experts" ... ... "experts" ... ... "experts" ... Jeez, did "experts" bully you as a child or something? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 meade95, Well,first I never really said that was the full premise.....but to your point above.... it sure in hell does make the world safer from THAT rapist...and that in and of itself is a net positive - Agreed, but if your GOAL is to make the world safe from rapists then taking that one rapist out of action does absolutely nothing in and of itself. That's the point you keep missing and it should be rather obvious. We can not kill our way out of this problem. The notion that capturing or killing real bad guys creates more of them is warped thinking wrapped up as trying to be the smartest guy in the room..... Which once again underscores your ignorance. The Jihadists are motivated to attack the US and its interests primarily because it sees us as an oppressor of their beliefs and soverignty. Explain to me how killing them could NOT possibly reinforce this notion? Fact is, by and large people do respond to incentives or decentives. Correction... RATIONAL people respond to RATIONAL incentives and disincentives RATIONALLY. Religious fanatics are, by definition, not rational. Give them a choice between freedom and death and guess what? They strap a bomb to their bodies and in their minds get both. The way to combat radicalism is to take away their cause, not to reinforce it. By occupying their lands with military forces, by killing their people (innocent or not), and by giving aid to oppressive governments we reinforce the core belief structure of the radical Islamists. The same CIA that missed the fall of the USSR?? The same CIA that gave POTUS the "slam-dunk WMD" assuracne? I'm not a big fan of the CIA, but it is an outright misstatement of fact to say that the CIA came up with the WMD lies. That was all the result of politicians cherry picking what they wanted AGAINST the advice of the CIA. The reality is since the war in Iraq / removal of Saddam.... more on the muslim street are turning against AQ/ and their mimics. Polls throughout the ME show this..... It was a boom for recruiting in the short-run.....but a majority of those recruits are all dead now. A whole segment of a generation is gone....dead. Years and years of terrorist leadership is likewise captured or dead...... These results are a net positive for the world. Please cite some credible sources for this belief that militant Islam is on the decline. The dirty secret was.....it was AQ who could not fight an effective multi-front war....not us..... We have done so, and done so damn well by most reasonable measures. Of course there are mistakes or wish-I-could-do-that-one again type situations/events.........But on the whole any notion that AQ and their mimics are better off today than in 2001 is ridiculous.... Or that Stan/Iraq are worse off today is beyond foolishness..... No, it is foolish to presume that the way Iraq and Afghanistan are now aren't the temporary states. Afghanistan is, by almost all accounts, being lost as we speak. There are differing opinions about why this is, but I've not seen anybody recently who thinks things are getting better there. That includes the military there on the ground. Iraq is in a delicate balance, while certainly better than the bloodbath that followed the fall of Saddam and the utter incompetence of our initial occupation. The world is better off with Saddam gone. The world is better off with the Taliban out of power.....The world is better off with ten's of thousands of AQ/ their mimics / anti-West foot soliders in the ground....... The world is better off with elections, with high voter participation taking place in Iraq and Stan...... No argument there. Never has been. But these are all very temporary things if there is no long term solution found to various long term problems. We are by no means "out of the woods" yet. The world is better off and the root causes of hate in the ME are finally seeing an alternative with the values of freedom and self-worth being seen and taking root for the first time in this region in recent memory......With us, the U.S and allies standing beside / with... seeing these new Gov't's stand fully up. In the minds of the West this is true. In the minds of many in the ME this is also true. But it is also true that our botched handling of Iraq and the fact we still are militarily occupying the country gives the radicals more ammo than they had before. And no, I just don't agree with you on this one..... we do not need to change our way of life for those in the ME. No, we need to change our way of life so we don't find ourselves in an economic crisis that makes the current one look like a minor bump in the road. Fix that for our own selfish reasons and we'll be much better off for it in all sorts of ways. One of which is not being in a position of pissing off the locals in the ME nearly as much as we do now. Let the Chinese and Indians have the fun of securing the flow of oil from the ME. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Normal Dude, Jeez, did "experts" bully you as a child or something? No, they just bullied his political ideology The first rule of defending an ideology is to reject rational discourse. That way you don't have to be bothered by facts and people who clearly know more about a subject. I make not claims to being the "smartest person in the room". Someone claiming everybody else is dumber is. I've made no such claims, except when directed at the current political leadership in the US. And they have a track record of making the wrong calls for the wrong reasons that is so well established that only a FOOL would attempt to dispute that fact. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piecekeeper Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Its all in the bible...depending how you read it.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Jeez, did "experts" bully you as a child or something? Ha. I may have used that word too often.......but I can't help it.... I can't turn on my TV anymore without some expert on this or that telling me what I'm suppose to think... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 No. Until those majorities within Muslim countries learn to love their children more than they hate....... These people will need to be confronted with force at times....plain and simple.....while at the same time where possible looking to continue to plant the values of freedom and self-worth within the citizens of said countries.....who for far too long have been denied even the notions of such.... Blaming Israel or the U.S. is beyond absurd. I think you would find that by most standards the average Muslim family places a greater priority on family values, family stability, and the proper education and upbringing of children, than the average Western family. Pretty much no matter how you cut it - the importance of the extended family, the social respectability of a Mother devoting her time to her children, the respect enjoyed by teachers and education, the relative priority of work as compared to family time, the list goes on - what is considered standard in a Muslim family is dying out or long gone in "Western" culture. Certainly, "Western" culture places a great value on individual freedoms and individual opportunity, and those values have certainly helped make Western culture the richest in the world, and brought great advances to humanity. But if you set yourself the goal of understanding Muslim culture (if such a thing is possible for such a huge group of people) you can't just ignore how seriously they take relatives and family, and then put them in the "freedom-hating" box and be done with it. The average Muslim looks at Western culture and is at least mildly horrified: How could we possibly ignore our children, make ourselves slaves to our jobs, put everything in life behind the pursuit of material wealth, and actually choose career over relatives? And even by our Western standards, you have to admit, their criticisms at least sort of have a point, as that's what we ask ourselves from time to time. So if soldiers from a Western culture go to a Muslim country, you guessed it, some Muslims will think very seriously about fighting the foreigners and the dangerous values they bring with them. You can argue all day long the Westerners actually are only trying to help, but so what? The people in the Muslim country generally see things differently, and it's their country. It takes a special kind of arrogance to assume that the world of Islam secretly wants Western material wealth and individual freedoms, and that the Muslims that think different, are just anti-social terrorists at heart. By almost any historical standard, Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting the Americans are defending their land from a foreign invader, and what's far more important, that's very likely how most of their countrymen see it. As far as whether Israel occupied any place legally or no, I'd say legality doesn't matter. The problem is the Israelis control Arab lands and the Arabs consider that control illegitimate, and the Israelis would prefer to control the lands and deal with the irate Arabs, than give up the lands. The US supports Israel strongly, and the Arabs do have a point when they say that if the US stopped supporting Israel, maybe the Israelis would be forced to resolve their land question with the Arabs. Since the land question is in the most holy region to Islam after the Mecca-Medina corridor itself, it is not suprising Muslims worldwide take a dim view of generally Christian Americans supporting and perhaps even guaranteeing the continued existence of a generally Jewish Israeli state, smack-dab in the Holy Land. There are now three or four generations of Arab refugees, they haven't forgotten and many of them still have deeds to the lands the Israelis captured. The Israelis are of course stronger militarily, so it is no problem for them to tell their Arab neighbors "Israel will do what it wants, screw you." The thing is, that Israeli posture - reasonable as it is from an Israeli point of view - has blow-back not just for Israel. Israel is the US' client, the US is visible worldwide, and there are Muslims worldwide. So surprise suprise, worldwide it's possible to find Muslims mad at Americans. If it were left up to me, I would say Israel has grown up, they don't need US support, they have nukes and they don't really listen to American anyway. So I would have America stop supporting Israel, and let the Palestine problem be Israel's to solve. I think that were the Israelis weaned of their sugar daddy being Israelis they would cut a deal with some of the Arabs to pit them against other Arabs, and there would be about the same level of stability as before, but every time some kid gets shot throwing rocks at a patrol in Gaza it won't be news sent around the world, it will just be local violence without big international implications. But in any case, the idea that Israel or the US are "blamed" is far from absurd. It is in fact a basic cause of anti-US antagonism in the Muslim world, and to dismiss such a fact as "absurd" is like covering up your eyes to protect yourself from an attacking grizzly. It doesn't really matter to the grizzly whether you acknowledge the grizzly as real, it's going to bite you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Normal Dude, No, they just bullied his political ideology The first rule of defending an ideology is to reject rational discourse. That way you don't have to be bothered by facts and people who clearly know more about a subject. I make not claims to being the "smartest person in the room". Someone claiming everybody else is dumber is. I've made no such claims, except when directed at the current political leadership in the US. And they have a track record of making the wrong calls for the wrong reasons that is so well established that only a FOOL would attempt to dispute that fact. Steve And are you directing that at the POTUS or Congress level?? Wasn't it Congressional leadership that told us Iraq was lost and that the "surge" would only make matters worse? That certainly was the "wrong call" for the "wrong reasons" (i.e. solely politically movtivated). Not at all in what was best for us (U.S.) nor Iraqis.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Normal Dude, No, they just bullied his political ideology The first rule of defending an ideology is to reject rational discourse. That way you don't have to be bothered by facts and people who clearly know more about a subject. I make not claims to being the "smartest person in the room". Someone claiming everybody else is dumber is. I've made no such claims, except when directed at the current political leadership in the US. And they have a track record of making the wrong calls for the wrong reasons that is so well established that only a FOOL would attempt to dispute that fact. Steve Well, it's the sort of anti-intellectualism in certain parts of America I have come to expect. Have an indefensible position? Demonize, insult and label away! Hopefully that will distract them from the paper-thin argument. While I am here, what is the evidence for: All you have to do is read the intercepts that are being released (or the islamic websites themselves) where AQ and their ilk are speaking of how they have lost in Iraq...and how it turned out to be a terrible blunder for THEIR cause.....how much they have lost in lives and resources and what a waste it turned out to be.... Polls throughout the ME show this..... I'd like to see these for myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 This is great, they should have been doing this for years, as Syria has been letting terrorists use their country as a staging area for attacks on our troops in Iraq from day 1. Iran is the one that really needs blasted, but that will be heavy bombing, not just a raid on terrorist camps and stuff like that. And as a bonus, it looks like BTS's theoretical war against Syria in CMII just got even more credible. hehe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 This is great, they should have been doing this for years, as Syria has been letting terrorists use their country as a staging area for attacks on our troops in Iraq from day 1. Iran is the one that really needs blasted, but that will be heavy bombing, not just a raid on terrorist camps and stuff like that. IMO, openly bombing them and openly violating their borders with impunity would be absolutely disastrous. It would be like cramming Miracle-Gro into the hydra's neck stumps, and a sure way of motivating their base. There is a point when all of the negatives outweigh positives; do you open cans with a sledgehammer? (OK, I have, but I was bored...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 meade95, And are you directing that at the POTUS or Congress level?? Wasn't it Congressional leadership that told us Iraq was lost and that the "surge" would only make matters worse? That certainly was the "wrong call" for the "wrong reasons" (i.e. solely politically movtivated). Not at all in what was best for us (U.S.) nor Iraqis.... A reminder that a different bunch of "experts" in the Congress authorized the use of war when it clearly wasn't supported by the facts, then allowed the Executive Branch to completely f'up the entire operation for several years. So no, my confidence in Congress, as a whole, is rock bottom. I think on the whole they are all doing this country a great disservice. The current economic meltdown was also completely preventable if the political will had been there. Now, back to oil... Let's see how meade95's political dogma fights these simple facts "Seven to 12 years are estimated to be required from an approval to explore and develop to first production from the ANWR Area." - US Department of Energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/analysisdiscussion.html So I guess the DOE is a Liberal Think Tank of some sort? A quick look at production figures... Current US imports of oil from OPEC countries - 5,980,000 barrels/day Projected max output from ANWAR - 1,000,000 barrels/day (starting in year 6 of production, or at the earliest 18 years from now) http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html As for the useless brainacs that meade95 has such a low opinion of, let's look at just one; Hubbert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubbert_US_high.svg (click on image to expand) Note that Hubbert's 1956 scientific prediction of US oil production decline compared to actual, factual decline. Care to illustrate how Hubbert is wrong, or do you want to come up with some sort of magical reason why it doesn't matter? So if we started drilling in ANWAR today, without much restrictions, we would have maybe 1/6th of the total oil per year in 18 years that we import from OPEC now. The problem is that not only does this only scratch the surface, it's based on today's consumption and domestic production numbers. The general consensus I've seen predicts a 30% increase in oil consumption by the US in the year 2020 (i.e. 12 years from now, the start of the ANWAR production if we started now). That means the current 20.6 million barrels per day we currently consume will be about 27 million per day by the year 2020, while at the same time domestic production (non ANWAR) will have decreased by about 50% (conservatively). This means we need to make up the difference of about 10 million barrels per day. Since our non-OPEC sources are already in decline, it looks like all of that will have to come from OPEC if we do no drilling at all. If we do drilling that means that in 12 years from now we'll be producing about 69 THOUSAND barrels per day. Or put another way, in 12 years ANWAR will offset our oil shortages by 0.7%. As ANWAR production increases, overall domestic production decreases, demand incerases, competition for foreign oil by our competors becomes more fierce. Yup, I really love the idea of dismissing the experts and instead listening to people who have no facts to back them up. Plenty comfort in being ignorant, even if ignorance doesn't heat a house, bring in your food, or get you to work and back. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 BigDuke6, But in any case, the idea that Israel or the US are "blamed" is far from absurd. It is in fact a basic cause of anti-US antagonism in the Muslim world, and to dismiss such a fact as "absurd" is like covering up your eyes to protect yourself from an attacking grizzly. It doesn't really matter to the grizzly whether you acknowledge the grizzly as real, it's going to bite you. Well said, however since you are a card carrying member of the Experts Club, your opinion doesn't matter Lee, This is great, they should have been doing this for years, as Syria has been letting terrorists use their country as a staging area for attacks on our troops in Iraq from day 1. Iran is the one that really needs blasted, but that will be heavy bombing, not just a raid on terrorist camps and stuff like that. Before you advocate such a rash course of action, I suggest you look at what the military who would be tasked with such a task thinks about the chances of success. Hint... on the whole they don't think it's a good idea. But using meade95's logic, we don't need to trust what the military has to say about it. Political dogma is enough. And as a bonus, it looks like BTS's theoretical war against Syria in CMII just got even more credible. hehe We were criticized by many for the selection of Syria. If Iraq had gone better we would already be in Syria proper if we hadn't found the ability to take out Iran first. But thankfully that nonsense got stopped before it went too far. The prospects of starting a third war when we haven't been able to finish the first two according to plan isn't something I'd be cheerleading for. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan8325 Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 Like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and other incorrect uses of the term "war"... the War on Terrorism will flounder and fail if the concept of winning is limited to killing the enemy or even taking over its territory. There isn't a single counter-terrorist expert I've ever heard, in my entire life, that thinks cross border raids, arrests/killings, and even bank account neutralization will do anything more than present a minor setback for the bad guys. In the grand scheme of things, yes. There was a replacement for Zarqawi, there will be a replacement for Bin Laden, there will be a replacement for whoever it was who was killed in Syria. With that said, killing/capturing does work as a tactical obstacle to the enemy in the short term. Remember that killing somebody takes what they have to offer off the table and sometimes it can take some time to find a suitable replacement. I think the mention of Generals Petraeus and Odierno proves this as an example that some people have TALENT and some don't. If we kill a highly capable bad guy, they can't just get another highly capable bad guy right away, although eventually a highly capable bad guy will likely fiind his way up the ladder to that position. In regard to our dependence on foreign oil, I agree with Pickens and others that it is currently one of the biggest, if not THE biggest problem our country faces, both economically and in foreign policy. Having said that, I would actually rather see the U.S. TAKE foreign oil right now, as opposed to buying it, before we significantly tap into our own oil supplies. You think we are hated now, imagine what the jihadist movement would look like then! But let me explain my thinking. We do not have as much oil as the middle east, bottom line. Tapping into our own oil supplies would increase our economy and relieve some of the need to have such a heavy hand on middle east stability, in the short term. However it does nothing to address the fact that oil is a limited resource, globally, and it will run out. Once our (U.S.) oil runs out, and we still haven't overcome the need for oil for things like transportation of all types, then our new, greater dependence on foreign oil would make today's dependence look like a minor inconvenience. Then you would see operations to occupy and take foreign oil fields, but at the same time other countries are also trying to occupy and take oil fields. Wars like this are eventually going to happen, inevitably, but we don't have to be forced into them with so much at stake. Without going into the technical and chemical details of why I believe battery and hydrogen storage technology will never match the energy storage ability of a liquid hydrocarbon (nature's battery), I will say that I believe the future is in liquid hydrocarbons, made from either solid biological matter (plants, garbage) or synthesized with CO2, H2O, and an energy source, such as a nuclear, solar or wind power plant. Gasoline without oil, basically. Ethanol and biodiesel have shown some promise, but it is difficult to produce these fuels in sufficient quantities. Also, they cut into food production. Unfortunately, the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis technologies are only in the fetal stages of development so it will be a few years before they are viable as real alternatives. Until then oil dependence can be relieved by using nuclear, solar and wind energy for non-transportation energy needs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Well said, however since you are a card carrying member of the Experts Club, your opinion doesn't matter Steve Steve - Lets cut the "expert" BS - It is you that brought up "experts" to begin with and ridiculously boasted in a sense that "all experts" agree with you..... Please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.