Sarah Failin

[Zeradul]

Yes, it is easy to fantasize about scenarios similar to the ones we've come to know that led to past wars.  But suggesting a mere assassination kicked off WWI is a massive simplification and you know that tensions were building for decades prior and for far greater reasons than the attempt and success of a single assassination.

Here's what I believe leads to the longest lasting peace.  I think that when every country has a fit, capable military, one that can easily defend it's borders not only is a good idea for that country itself, but also makes any rogue action of a neighboring country far less likely.  That is the finest deterrence of all, when your neighbors' combined might can squash any and all military actions.

You're going to say that what about the suitcase nuke?  Well, a suitcase nuke is still something of science fiction, it doesn't exist yet.  But lets say some rogue terrorist group gets a hold of an actual nuke.  First of all, this is an extremely difficult task, as most terrorist groups don't have someone well educated enough to pull it off.  Well, then the best solution against that is for every country able to defend against that.  I cannot fathom how magically our country's military, defending a foreign country against a foreign attack is going to be more effective than if we weren't there.

If Israel can't defend itself against such an attack, then they should consider other alternatives.  It was so fucking stupid of us to put Israel where we did, and a lasting peace will not result until we overcome the bondage of religion as a species.  Since that isn't happening soon, especially in that part of the world, I think that we, the US, being there only is making the tension worse, and I would offer refuge to any Israeli or Palestinian who wants to come live in America.  That may seem extreme, to suggest moving an entire country's citizens, but the solution is not endless occupation and military aid.

============

Granted, your points have significant truths to them, if they didn't, the Pentagon wouldn't be acting based on them.

However, while my former paragraphs have explained why I think there is a world outside that can exist in peace without our global empire, this is my biggest reason why I believe we must find another way.

Simply put, our current path is unsustainable.  We won the cold war with little lasting negative aspects.  But merely waging a war against a small group of poorly trained, poorly educated taliban has cost us well over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.  Numerous projects show that even if Obama does pull out like he claims he will next August that the final bill will be well over TWO TRILLION.

Iraq and Afghanistan make Vietnam look like a training exercise, except in deaths of course.  57,000 dead (US) in Vietnam.  Financial cost however was a tiny, tiny fraction of Bush's war.  How can you ignore that trendline.  At least Vietnam was a unified country working against us.  The Taliban are merely bands of thugs which account for a tiny fraction of Afghanistan's population.

We CAN NOT continue at this rate, and that is why I believe that if we don't cease our peacekeeping attempts that those evil WWIII fantasies of yours are going to be hastened.  Better to let the world prepare now by announcing every country has to defend themselves than to have it all happen all at once at some hard to predict time in the future.  And it's not an IF it will happen.  At this rate it is a WHEN.

[Zeradul]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/index.html

Oofta... so far, so good?

 

[rue]

How did we go from explaining the reasons behind the 1-4-2-1 to Iraq and Afghanistan?  Was it the same way we went from talking about Sarah Palin being on Fox to her qualifications vs. VP Joe Biden? 

Scope is important in discourse, Zera.  Otherwise you're just talking to yourself.

[rue]

Quick hits:

--The WWI analogy showed how little events abroad have Butterfly Effects.  It was in response to insinuating foreign affairs of nations thousands of miles away do not concern national security.

--How are all nations to have similar military powers?  How does a bereft nation like Afghanistan gain the military power of an oil rich nation like Iran?

--We once thought terrorists too dumb to fly airplanes.  They don't have to make a suitcase nuke.  They can be given, and they fit in vans.  But more to the matter, why was the nuke portion focused on so intently?  My point was to show how an event could rope the U.S. into peril and how our military is therefore key.  The example just as easily could have been anthrax vials released in a crowded Tokyo airport.  A crop duster dumping nerve gas over Moscow.  Etc.

--I've explained on this forum before the history of Israel post WWII.  It was the UN's perfectly fair solution that happened to be perfectly stupid.  We can't dwell on the past, though.   And we can't evacuate an entire country.  I was staring blankly as I read that.  In any case, I generally ignore statements about world policy that start out "here's what I would do...".  It's egotistical and very empty to suggest a plan that subverts the governments of foreign nations and the natural rights of their citizens.  It cant' be done, so why suggest it?  That's your solution?  I'll tell you this right now:  Sarah Palin wouldn't come up with an impossible solution like that.  If Katie Couric ever interviews you, I think you'll want to find a better answer.

[Stinger]

Was it the same way we went from talking about Sarah Palin being on Fox to her qualifications vs. VP Joe Biden? 

   Oh, are we not supposed to remember what a person did less than 2 years ago when we talk about her? I didn't realize that was the new rule now for anyone you like. Thanks for making that clear.

   Scope is indeed important in discourse, DD. And when you're discussing a figure who still actively effects the political landscape in a real way? The scope needs to extend at least a year and a half ago when she became one of the most famous people in the world by showing up for try-outs as the second most powerful person in our country without having even rudimentary knowledge of the job description.

   And something else that really does need to be brought up in an informed discussion on Sarah Palin? That'd be a few years before she met McCain. That time she had a brimstone evangelist pray for her finances, especially in her upcoming campaigns, and also for her to rebuke all witchcraft. Seriously. Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg

   Her past is relevant. When you mix it with her present it gives you glimpses into her future, and whatever it is she manages to pull off at Fox or anywhere else, we already know it won't be dignified.

   And what's with the Katie Couric crack? Anyone who genuinely portrays Katie Couric as a hardball investigative journalist has been drinking too much of their own revisionist kool-aid. Palin failed softball interviews scheduled with people who wanted to help her look good. Then she went on to the one and only debate, her chance to prove herself competent, and her best tactic was to completely ignore whatever question she'd been asked in favor of the talking points she'd been drilled on.

   The past matters. And two years ago isn't even distant, so it's surely not irrelevant. And someone who uses WW2 history to explain why we do things today should really know better than to suggest that a few hundred days time passing suddenly makes something not worth studying.

   Palin hasn't done anything. Ever. She's best known for being the second biggest loser on a big day, and for quitting the only job she was ever elected to. She will be forever loved by her followers, and never taken seriously by anyone else.

[Zeradul]

How did we go from explaining the reasons behind the 1-4-2-1 to Iraq and Afghanistan?  Was it the same way we went from talking about Sarah Palin being on Fox to her qualifications vs. VP Joe Biden?

Pretty much.  Anytime you have this type of long-term discussion, this one having lasted nearly two weeks so far, you are going to get some tangents, purely because people don't go back and read everything from the beginning every time.

--How are all nations to have similar military powers?  How does a bereft nation like Afghanistan gain the military power of an oil rich nation like Iran?

Not similar in size, just fit and capable.  Yes there will be nations that cannot do this, but generally their neighbors will fill their void.  The goal as I see it should be that if every country has a military proportionate to population that the threat of self defense is the best thing we have to reduce global conflict.

--We once thought terrorists too dumb to fly airplanes.  They don't have to make a suitcase nuke.  They can be given, and they fit in vans.  But more to the matter, why was the nuke portion focused on so intently?

Mostly because this is a forum discussion and some degree of brevity is needed.  Also, nukes are far more of a threat than any other weapon of mass destruction.  Also... stealing an airplane already in the air is at least a million times easier than building a nuclear bomb.

In any case, I generally ignore statements about world policy that start out "here's what I would do...".  It's egotistical and very empty to suggest a plan that subverts the governments of foreign nations and the natural rights of their citizens.  It cant' be done, so why suggest it?  That's your solution?

Well I feel it is important to think about alternatives, and "what I would do" because if I don't agree with the mainstream belief, then it is my responsibility to come up with an alternative if I am going to say that what we are currently doing is wrong.  I suggest that letting Israel move is not necessarily what they should do, but I suggest that THEY are going to have to figure out a lasting solution.  I do NOT think that our endless handouts of money and military aid is a good thing for us, them or the world.  It continues to undermine the idea of democracy in the region, and associates hatred of Israel (and Israel's actions) with hatred for us.  I suggest moving a country because I do believe the situation is that severe with no other long term solution, short of both societies somehow ridding themselves of religion and culturally based conflict.

Either way it is not our decision, nor our responsibility.

[rue]

How did we go from explaining the reasons behind the 1-4-2-1 to Iraq and Afghanistan?  Was it the same way we went from talking about Sarah Palin being on Fox to her qualifications vs. VP Joe Biden?

Pretty much.  Anytime you have this type of long-term discussion, this one having lasted nearly two weeks so far, you are going to get some tangents, purely because people don't go back and read everything from the beginning every time.

Nah it's not the tangential portion so much as it's stealing premises from other arguments to fit the issue at hand.  I'm a math major so I tend to have most of my machinery work from the ultra rational side of my brain, so I comment as such because it messes with my brain when people do that.  Specifically in this case I earlier defended the size of the U.S. military with the 1-4-2-1 plan.  You remarked this plan is unsustainable because of the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.  That's where my brain has the interrupt.  That's where I remarked scope is important. 

--How are all nations to have similar military powers?  How does a bereft nation like Afghanistan gain the military power of an oil rich nation like Iran?

Not similar in size, just fit and capable.  Yes there will be nations that cannot do this, but generally their neighbors will fill their void.  The goal as I see it should be that if every country has a military proportionate to population that the threat of self defense is the best thing we have to reduce global conflict.

I may be confused but I still don't see how this works.  For example, in 1990 thirty-four nations declared war on Iraq because it invaded the small nation of Kuwait and seized their oil production facilities.  What was Kuwait's defense against Iraq had these thirty four nations kept to themselves?

--We once thought terrorists too dumb to fly airplanes.  They don't have to make a suitcase nuke.  They can be given, and they fit in vans.  But more to the matter, why was the nuke portion focused on so intently?

Mostly because this is a forum discussion and some degree of brevity is needed.  Also, nukes are far more of a threat than any other weapon of mass destruction.  Also... stealing an airplane already in the air is at least a million times easier than building a nuclear bomb.

They can be given one.

In any case, I generally ignore statements about world policy that start out "here's what I would do...".  It's egotistical and very empty to suggest a plan that subverts the governments of foreign nations and the natural rights of their citizens.  It cant' be done, so why suggest it?  That's your solution?

Well I feel it is important to think about alternatives, and "what I would do" because if I don't agree with the mainstream belief, then it is my responsibility to come up with an alternative if I am going to say that what we are currently doing is wrong.  I suggest that letting Israel move is not necessarily what they should do, but I suggest that THEY are going to have to figure out a lasting solution.  I do NOT think that our endless handouts of money and military aid is a good thing for us, them or the world.  It continues to undermine the idea of democracy in the region, and associates hatred of Israel (and Israel's actions) with hatred for us.  I suggest moving a country because I do believe the situation is that severe with no other long term solution, short of both societies somehow ridding themselves of religion and culturally based conflict.

Either way it is not our decision, nor our responsibility.

Props for proposing a solution.  I do hate a complaint made about the world that doesn't have a solution at the ready.  In the end that only amounts to complaining life isn't easy, which is an empty complaint.

However, I just don't think your solution viable.  Who would any of us be to remove people from their homes?  It reeks of dictatorships past. 

But it is our responsibility.  Not exclusively, because more accurately it's the world's responsibility, but as the world's leading superpower, it's more squarely ours.  I'm willing to bet we've peeled another argument down to its fundamental crux.  You will likely always believe in neutrality.  I will always believe peace is an active duty.  Ruckus will snap necks.  It's the way of the world. 

[Ruckus]

Damn if this discussion isn't top fucking notch.

This sorta debate is awesome. I'm in awe.

Continue please.

[Zeradul]

Ruck, you know I wish you would speak your mind more often here.  There are rumors going around that you're a smart guy.       I'm always curious to hear the opinions and viewpoints of people with military experience.

Specifically in this case I earlier defended the size of the U.S. military with the 1-4-2-1 plan.  You remarked this plan is unsustainable because of the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.  That's where my brain has the interrupt.  That's where I remarked scope is important.

I guess I'm not following what you're saying.  Let me clarify that you defended the current deployment of the US military with the Pentagon's 1-4-2-1 plan.  I think it is completely on topic if admittedly a bit tangential that then discussing the validity of the 1-4-2-1 plan next.  I see costs spiraling out of control in the recent past, present and future.  I believe that the plan itself is not valid because it is not something we will be able to sustain.  Therefore, we might as well seek alternatives to current deployment now, instead of racing off the edge of a cliff to a fate of essentially the same problems we currently have, but magnified exponentially as a result of our actions.

I may be confused but I still don't see how this works.  For example, in 1990 thirty-four nations declared war on Iraq because it invaded the small nation of Kuwait and seized their oil production facilities.  What was Kuwait's defense against Iraq had these thirty four nations kept to themselves?

Well, I have stolen this idea from prominent philosophers past and present, but I'll do my best to explain it more clearly.  The situation with Kuwait is exactly what I envision as ideal.  One nation oversteps it's authority and invades another.  The blatant aggression is seen by the world and the competent military nations of the region act to reverse the aggression.  That is why each nation having a fit military is a good idea, because you get a coalition, and a coalition reflects many nation's interests AND viewpoints when discussing what action should be taken.  You'll say that many of the mid-east nations did not help out, and I suggest to you that in a world with more democracy, and fewer dictatorships, the neighboring countries would have stepped up to defend their neighbor.

The reason why a distant foreign power like ourselves needs to be removed from the majority of military action (in the middle east especially) is because we don't have the credibility or locality to really help the situation.  Credibility: we have endlessly fucked with the region (politically, economically, and militarily) for decades, so why would our "help" be trusted now?  Locality: we don't have to live with the threat of one of Saddam's long distance rockets hitting us.  Whatever the outcome, we won't have to live day and night in fear of attack, like Israel does, or for a time, Kuwait did.  The neighboring countries in any region with conflict are going to have to work it out for themselves, and UNTIL THEY DO their issues will remain unresolved and we will have lasting conflict.  You can't solve a conflict like Afghanistan by removing the symptom (in our case, killing all the Taliban we can find) you have to cure the cause of the problem.  There are little boys today growing up fatherless, motherless, uncle-less, etc who don't understand the Taliban's politics.  They don't understand any of it because they're 6 or 10 or 15.  They only understand that one or more of their relatives is dead, and have no reason to think it was for any other reason that because we did it. (intentionally or accidentally, does it really matter?)

The worst possible course of action was for us to invade Iraq, but almost as bad was to invade Afghanistan, abduct both criminal and commoner, put them in Guantanamo for years on end un-charged, (insert laundry list of military mistakes and ACLU-type violations), because you cannot beat a guerrilla fighting force.  Even if you kill them all, you leave a very wounded next generation who's life goal is revenge and retribution.

Yes, conditions for women and pretty much everyone is terrible in Afghanistan, and has likely gotten better for the short term, but we can' fix all the world's ills with the end of a gun.  We can give aid, like building schools and infrastructure, and SHOW them how we are superior.  That is how you fight the Taliban, paint them consistently and clearly over decades that they are wrong, and ultimately you reduce their recruits to zero, and the populace ceases to tolerate them as neighbors.

They can be given one.

True, I didn't respond to this.  So what is the solution to stopping a van-nuke?  Is it rigorously patrolling every city in every region that might be capable of such action?  Especially if we will not be able to sustain such an action indefinitely?

I don't think so.  I think the best route to stopping a terrorist nuke is to undermine terrorism itself by reducing conflict, reducing strife, and increasing education on an entire world scale.  How concerned are we that a terrorist will come from growing up in Houston?  Not at all concerned, in fact, domestic terrorism is pretty much limited now to mental disorder, and suicidal attention whores.  To be clear: not terrorism resulting from extremist ideologies, the kind that can produce droves of suicide bombers for generation upon generation.

We might have some bumps along the way, but attempting to patrol the entire world is unsustainable, and only breeds more tension and more discontent.  Each nation need protect itself from threat of nuclear bomb-van type attacks.  For instance, we now have, (and I believe this technology is being freely shared with the world) big radioactive sensors that are built on either side of major freeways.  There are dozens of these devices now in every major city in the US, and they instantly alert local police and military to this type of threat.  These devices are no doubt being installed all over the world, and this is one example of how to detect and preemptively deal with this threat.

However, I just don't think your solution viable.  Who would any of us be to remove people from their homes?  It reeks of dictatorships past.

First of all, I'm not suggesting moving every Israeli.  I'm suggesting Israel and Palestine find a lasting solution to their conflict, and I believe that starts with US shutting off the money hose.  As soon as Israel doesn't have the finest military equipment in the world, they might think twice about how they treat the Palestinians, and THAT would be a huge step towards lasting peace.

Second, let it be known that you mentioned dictatorships first.  I hesitated to say it, and I intend no offense or aggression here, but I believe the 1-4-2-1 policy of the pentagon is arrogant and reeks of a military dictatorship.  We have already removed a large number of governments from power (granted, mostly thugs) over the past 70 years.  Some of them were joint actions, like WWI and WWII, but many were not, Saddam '04, removing Iran's democracy in '53, Guatemala in '56, Chile in '73, Vietnam, Nicaragua mid '80s, and those are just the major ones.

I'm willing to bet we've peeled another argument down to its fundamental crux.  You will likely always believe in neutrality.  I will always believe peace is an active duty.  Ruckus will snap necks.  It's the way of the world.

It's true, that is a decent summary.  I do believe in neutrality, but I also believe in distributed active duty when it involves dealing with a threat from a neighbor, and with the help of one's neighbors.  I also believe in diplomacy, and diplomacy is more likely when you have dozens of present, capable militaries led by stable, ideally democratic governments, as opposed to a single dominant world super power.

Diplomacy leads to discussion, discussion leads to understanding, understanding leads to more prudent military action.

[rue]

Mid-terms Thursday and going out of town for work Friday.  Long delay for next response.   

Talk amongst yourselves.  I'll give you a topic:

How many late snakes could a great Ruck break if a great Ruck could break eight late snakes while irate?

[Ruckus]

I guess since Failin is a fox noise employee now I could link a jab of that propaganda network to this thread.  LOL  Jon Stewart is just plain win.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/jon-stewart-fox-news-sarah-palin-megyn-kelly_n_485235.html

[wargasm]

maybe he should just run for public office then.  right?

[Ruckus]

NO WAY ,  he uses a teleprompter.

[rue]

And...time in.

Ruck, you know I wish you would speak your mind more often here.  There are rumors going around that you're a smart guy.      I'm always curious to hear the opinions and viewpoints of people with military experience.

Specifically in this case I earlier defended the size of the U.S. military with the 1-4-2-1 plan.  You remarked this plan is unsustainable because of the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.  That's where my brain has the interrupt.  That's where I remarked scope is important.

I guess I'm not following what you're saying.  Let me clarify that you defended the current deployment of the US military with the Pentagon's 1-4-2-1 plan.  I think it is completely on topic if admittedly a bit tangential that then discussing the validity of the 1-4-2-1 plan next.  I see costs spiraling out of control in the recent past, present and future.  I believe that the plan itself is not valid because it is not something we will be able to sustain.  Therefore, we might as well seek alternatives to current deployment now, instead of racing off the edge of a cliff to a fate of essentially the same problems we currently have, but magnified exponentially as a result of our actions.

I feel like we're arguing what the definition of "is" is.  I thought we were debating generally the rights of the U.S. to use its military to intervene internationally.  I brought up the 1-4-2-1.  You countered with Iraq and Afghanistan being unsustainable.  I scratched my head.  Iraq does fit but Afghanistan doesn't.  9/11 caused Afghanistan.  The 1-4-2-1's fear of WMDs caused Iraq.  

But to your points:

I can assure you that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan won't bankrupt us.  In a few months, both wars (not just Afghanistan as you said) will have cost us $1 trillion.  In that same time period, our real GDP annual amount has increased from $10 trillion to $14.5 trillion.  Whenever the government increases its expenditures, it's met with an increase in personal incomes.  This causes a feedback loop that increases GDP.  It's known as the money multiplier effect.  Mind you what I describe here is not analogous to a money generator, it's more analogous to a money recycler.  We don't get everything back, but the total cost also isn't total leaked.  

It's like comparing two car dealerships:  Dave's Toyota with an annual operation cost of $26,000,000 and Martin's BMW with a total operating cost of $100,000,000 and concluding that clearly Dave is the superior entrepreneur.  

I may be confused but I still don't see how this works.  For example, in 1990 thirty-four nations declared war on Iraq because it invaded the small nation of Kuwait and seized their oil production facilities.  What was Kuwait's defense against Iraq had these thirty four nations kept to themselves?

Well, I have stolen this idea from prominent philosophers past and present, but I'll do my best to explain it more clearly.  The situation with Kuwait is exactly what I envision as ideal.  One nation oversteps it's authority and invades another.  The blatant aggression is seen by the world and the competent military nations of the region act to reverse the aggression.  That is why each nation having a fit military is a good idea, because you get a coalition, and a coalition reflects many nation's interests AND viewpoints when discussing what action should be taken.  You'll say that many of the mid-east nations did not help out, and I suggest to you that in a world with more democracy, and fewer dictatorships, the neighboring countries would have stepped up to defend their neighbor.

Until said democracies and said fewer dictatorships come about, what then is Kuwait's salvation?  I mean, I like The Zera Plan, Zera, but, where is it? When is it?  Because it's not in the Middle East.  And it's not in 2010.  In the Middle East in 2010 we need a different plan.

The reason why a distant foreign power like ourselves needs to be removed from the majority of military action (in the middle east especially) is because we don't have the credibility or locality to really help the situation.  Credibility: we have endlessly fucked with the region (politically, economically, and militarily) for decades, so why would our "help" be trusted now?  Locality: we don't have to live with the threat of one of Saddam's long distance rockets hitting us.  Whatever the outcome, we won't have to live day and night in fear of attack, like Israel does, or for a time, Kuwait did.  The neighboring countries in any region with conflict are going to have to work it out for themselves, and UNTIL THEY DO their issues will remain unresolved and we will have lasting conflict.  You can't solve a conflict like Afghanistan by removing the symptom (in our case, killing all the Taliban we can find) you have to cure the cause of the problem.  There are little boys today growing up fatherless, motherless, uncle-less, etc who don't understand the Taliban's politics.  They don't understand any of it because they're 6 or 10 or 15.  They only understand that one or more of their relatives is dead, and have no reason to think it was for any other reason that because we did it. (intentionally or accidentally, does it really matter?)

The worst possible course of action was for us to invade Iraq, but almost as bad was to invade Afghanistan, abduct both criminal and commoner, put them in Guantanamo for years on end un-charged, (insert laundry list of military mistakes and ACLU-type violations), because you cannot beat a guerrilla fighting force.  Even if you kill them all, you leave a very wounded next generation who's life goal is revenge and retribution.

Yes, conditions for women and pretty much everyone is terrible in Afghanistan, and has likely gotten better for the short term, but we can' fix all the world's ills with the end of a gun.  We can give aid, like building schools and infrastructure, and SHOW them how we are superior.  That is how you fight the Taliban, paint them consistently and clearly over decades that they are wrong, and ultimately you reduce their recruits to zero, and the populace ceases to tolerate them as neighbors.

All of the preceding points out valid unwanted consequences of U.S. involvement.  I agree these are terrible things.  I, however; hold to the claim that while not ideal, the alternatives were worse.  

Of note:  I roll my eyes when you're superfluous and claim we "abducted" random people and shipped them off to Gitmo.  It's a discredit to the CIA and United States Military's professionalism, whose history does not warrant such ridicule.

They can be given one.

True, I didn't respond to this.  So what is the solution to stopping a van-nuke?  Is it rigorously patrolling every city in every region that might be capable of such action?  Especially if we will not be able to sustain such an action indefinitely?

Nah, I didn't convey my reasoning for bringing up the whole van nuke (and in general: major terrorist event) "thing".  I'm not saying our military should be large and active to prevent a terrorist attack. Not cost efficient, effective or possible. I'm saying it should be so to decrease the rate of armaments by nations in key regions.  The van nuke thing was a scenario that showed how far off events in distant nations affect the U.S. whether we like it or not.

As a case example:  

Iran's an up and comer on the world stage.  They are a comparatively wealthy nation.  They have the governmental structure.  They have a size-able population.  They clearly want a bigger say in the world.  So why not pull an Iraq?  Why don't they bury Israel as they'd like to?  My answer, truly, is: the World.  But I feel a large portion of that answer is made up of:  The U.S. military and its allies.  But you may point out that the U.S. and it's allies could bury Iran 16 times over even at Iran's best, so why spend SO MUCH money on maintaining a wholly superior military and why commit so much concern in countering armament development in other sovereign states?  Because behavioral psychology tells us that ambitious dictators see wiggle room and opportunity in "almost as good" but barricades in "not even close to being as good."  The U.S. military serves as conversation ender.  The message is "Not on our worst day.  Not on your best day.  Not if you broker an alliance with others.  Not today.  Not tomorrow.  Not ever.  Just stop."

I have a feeling this will be another fundamental point of disagreement between us as it's analogous to our two year old debate regarding whether the TSA should be so meticulous in its efforts to prevent a terrorist attack.  I argue it doesn't prevent all, but serves as deterrent to many.  You see it as excessive given inevitability.  Such is the way of the universe.

However, I just don't think your solution viable.  Who would any of us be to remove people from their homes?  It reeks of dictatorships past.

Second, let it be known that you mentioned dictatorships first.  I hesitated to say it, and I intend no offense or aggression here, but I believe the 1-4-2-1 policy of the pentagon is arrogant and reeks of a military dictatorship.  We have already removed a large number of governments from power (granted, mostly thugs) over the past 70 years.  Some of them were joint actions, like WWI and WWII, but many were not, Saddam '04, removing Iran's democracy in '53, Guatemala in '56, Chile in '73, Vietnam, Nicaragua mid '80s, and those are just the major ones.

Just a fact check:  My South American history is poor, so I'll give you all those, however; all of the Middle Eastern claims and Vietnam not being joint actions aren't true.  The Brits assisted in '53.  Australia, New Zealand and several other countries fought with us in Vietnam.  Several nations have been and are involved with Saddam in Iraq.  

As for benevolence, I direct you to an earlier argument of "not great but best."

I'm willing to bet we've peeled another argument down to its fundamental crux.  You will likely always believe in neutrality.  I will always believe peace is an active duty.  Ruckus will snap necks.  It's the way of the world.

It's true, that is a decent summary.  I do believe in neutrality, but I also believe in distributed active duty when it involves dealing with a threat from a neighbor, and with the help of one's neighbors.  I also believe in diplomacy, and diplomacy is more likely when you have dozens of present, capable militaries led by stable, ideally democratic governments, as opposed to a single dominant world super power.

Diplomacy leads to discussion, discussion leads to understanding, understanding leads to more prudent military action.

I eagerly await that Utopia, too.  But not idly.  

[Zeradul]

I have been super busy this week, and I have friends in town for the next week to mountain bike, so I will follow up on all of this eventually, but I wanted to respond directly to this, because it is very important.

I roll my eyes when you're superfluous and claim we "abducted" random people and shipped them off to Gitmo.  It's a discredit to the CIA and United States Military's professionalism, whose history does not warrant such ridicule.

Now, this was not something well reported on, but it is very important to note that:

"Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan  began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. In January 2009, approximately 245 detainees remained.[15]  This number further decreased to 215 by November 2009."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

So some quick math... (420 of 775) = 54% were innocent.  Now it is believe that 30 of the men we released went back and were involved with terrorism, but who is to say that their capture and unfair imprisonment did not PISS THEM OFF, and force them to live for years exposed to the nastiest al-qaeda operatives being held:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle

The 215 we continue to hold uncharged with any crime, and are not allowing their right to legal counsel, of those, it is likely that some of them are too innocent.

So the percent is very fair to say that we were wrong half the time of men we captured.  That's why I used the word abducted.  THIS is why we have due process and civil rights.  Those innocent men DESERVED to be charged or released.  Not held for years (some over 5 years!) the whole time their families had no idea where they were.

[Mnementh]

I think it is a stretch to label the 420 that were released as "innocent".  That is making a LOT of assumptions there, and it conveniently skews the statistic in your favor.  We don't know if there was simply a lack of evidence due to terrorist charges being VERY hard to substantiate because people are TERRORIZED by the thought of ratting out or testifying against a suspected terrorist.  Not to mention that in order to really prosecute these guys it would require bringing witnesses over from whatever country they might be from, etc., etc.  Basically, I would NOT assume that all of the 420 prisoners released were "innocent" and any attempt to characterize them as such is rather disingenuous. 

[Zeradul]

Well what term would you prefer to use for individuals released without ever being charged with a crime? (and certainly not convicted)

Innocent or not, these are 420 humans who we detained, most of them for years, and we ultimately did not have any evidence to even charge them with a crime, and let them go as free men.

Even terrorists with circumstantial evidence would be at least charged with a crime, even if later found not guilty.  These are 420 people whom we never even charged.

[kai]

not enough evidence, therefore innocent?

[Ruckus]

If I remember correctly, the reason a majority of them were arrested, and later released; was the fact that we put out huge rewards in country so poor they grow dirt. And many people would turn in people they were just upset with or suspected with no proof mostly just to get the cash. Then they would take the money ( a fortune to them ) and haul ass. Not to be sympathetic to the last administration cause they sucked, but it prolly took  torturing about 20-30 of them before they saw the pattern, lol.

[rue]

Wording is important here.  While it's true many (the number is actually 520.  Wikipedia's incorrect.)  of the detainees have left Guantanamo Bay Prison, the majority were returned to the penal systems of their respective nations.  Their fates from there are varied.  Some were found not guilty, some were convicted and sent to prison or rehabilitation.  

The prolonged time they've been incarcerated has been due to a disagreement in all three branches of the government (and a priori, the citizens of the U.S.) regarding the manner in which the detainees should be tried.  Are they to be tried as prisoners of war or as criminals against the U.S. government?  Prisoners of war are tried in military courts, criminals against the U.S. government are tried in federal court.  Both military and federal courts begin with the presumption of innocence, the difference is in the degree of evidence required and most notably in the area of sentencing.  In both cases, military courts are more punitive.  

[Ruckus]

[Garr]

when I see her talking on fox I face palm myself. She just rambles and rambles and rambles. She never stops to take a breath.

[Zeradul]

not enough evidence, therefore innocent?

O.J. WAS charged AND TRIED for his alleged crimes.  Our court system is broken and so given it's broken state he was found not guilty.  No, that does not mean he is innocent, but at least he was charged and tried.

Of the men released from Guantanamo, none were even charged with a crime.  Many of them were arrested in their hometowns as a result of suspicions of their neighbors.

DD, I would agree with you that they could be tried as War Criminals, if we had declared war.  We have not declared war, and so that makes the involvement in the middle east a more PC term; "police action"  Thus, if we are policing a foreign country, I believe that we have no right to capture and hold their citizens indefinitely without charging them.

Yes, you can claim that it is very hard to gather evidence against these people, but if we didn't have significant evidence then why did we arrest/abduct them in the first place?

--------

Yes the "war" in the middle east is an extremely difficult thing to "win".  We are fighting a guerrilla force, and in the history of the world guerrilla forces are undefeated.  People defending their homes, mixing into the general population, fighting sporadically with guerrilla tactics.  I believe that even if we could magically make ever al-qaeda and Taliban operative drop dead today without firing another shot, we would still "lose" because we have left a generation of children to grow up in this strife filled region, without fathers, uncles, grandfathers, and potentially mothers etc who were accidental civilian casualties.

Regardless of ideology, having a foreign power occupy your nation for your entire childhood, with people you are related to dieing and involved in the horror leaves a generation hating that outside force, regardless of any other factors.

So I don't have a solution for the Guantanamo detainees.  I'm sure the military did their best to capture people they thought were involved, and they were probably right at least 30% of the time.  I don't doubt that is a heroic achievement, but that doesn't excuse the incarceration of innocent civilians without trial.  While I don't have a solution for dealing with this quandary, I do have a solution for the whole situation:

Treat the Taliban like a bratty 3 year old.  Ignore the bad behavior and limit or stop the potential for harm to be done.  In cases of extreme neglect, like leaving out matches, or 9-11 I suggest fix the problems that led us to be vulnerable to problems.  It is so simple to stop hijackings.  We're talking a $5-$10,000 retrofit to all planes adding a "pilots only" door, and a solid partition keeping everyone out of the cockpit.  So simple.  The best thing for the Taliban is for us to attack them.  That makes recruitment soar.  So we ignore them.  They have zero boats, zero planes, zero tanks.  And even if they did, note that Saddam had the worlds 6th largest military in 2003, and ZERO of his planes got off the ground as we attacked.  Fucking ZERO.  We have nothing to fear from the Taliban but our own incompetence.  To this day we have the TSA taking away liquids from people, based on a myth about liquid explosives are possible to create on a plane, which is a premise discredited by chemists literally weeks after the TSA invented the "liquid explosives" threat.

[rue]

It's not the case that the men released from Guantanamo were not tried with any crimes.  They were not tried by the Federal Government because of lulls in the judicial process, again regarding how they should be tried.  Many of the detainees released were charged by their home nations and subjected to their respective judicial systems.

Whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan are police actions and the aggressors against U.S. soldiers and the nation as a whole are "criminals" or "enemy combatants" or "prisoners of war" is a subjective (and pithy) argument we can discuss till we're 80 and probably still not reach agreement.  Perhaps if we're placed in the same nursing home by that time we can continue this discussion over apple sauce. 

Also by that time we can discuss the long term merit of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, as those stories are still being written.  What we will never know was the price of doing nothing, which is something we should not discount. 

At least 30% correct?  How very kind of you.  The CIA appreciates your generous claim regarding their professionalism. 

Our only fear wasn't cockpits and planes.  Recall the U.S.S. Cole and the Beirut Barracks.

[Zeradul]

Many of the detainees released were charged by their home nations and subjected to their respective judicial systems.

Really?  Do you have a source or stats on how frequent this was?

Whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan are police actions and the aggressors against U.S. soldiers and the nation as a whole are "criminals" or "enemy combatants" or "prisoners of war" is a subjective (and pithy) argument

What do you mean by pithy?  I think it is a very important clarification because it defines our role, the guidelines for conduct, the relevant human rights issues that apply to both the conflict and the holding of prisoners.  It is VERY important.  And if Congress is too spineless to "Declare War" on the Taliban, then maybe that says something else.  Maybe if Congress can't vote to go to war, then we should not be there.  Not declaring war when we invade a foreign country is pure cowardice by politicians who are just letting the military do what they want without clear AND PUBLIC discussion of what should be done.

At least 30% correct?  How very kind of you.

Again, stats to the contrary and I take it all back, but at the moment we have released 520 individuals, 30 of which returned to terrorist activities, and another 230 we continue to suspect their guilt.  So I think saying "at least 30% correct" is fair.

Our only fear wasn't cockpits and planes.  Recall the U.S.S. Cole and the Beirut Barracks.

Of course, I wasn't only trying to suggest dealing the "real threat" posed by the Taliban (for historical context compare the Taliban's 0 planes, 0 tanks, 0 ships, 0 submarines, 0 nukes to the tens of thousands of nukes Russia had pointed at us in the cold war)

We need to treat mountains as mountains, and ant hills as ant hills.  The Taliban are no more than a gang in an impoverished region.  I don't doubt our own domestic organized crime in their peaks were far better armed, better organized, better educated, more influential, and better equipped than the Taliban could ever hope to be.

Prohibition era Mob > Taliban  ??

[Zeradul]

This was be published yesterday:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece

the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken.

[rue]

Congress did approve the deployment of U.S. forces to Afghanistan.  The only reason war wasn't declared was because the U.S. government has never recognized (and would not recognize) the national authority of the Taliban. 

The Pentagon has actually noted 61 detainees as returning to terrorist organizations.  I regard that number as high when considering one doesn't exactly announce his intentions in secret organizations. 

"I don't doubt our own domestic organized crime in their peaks were far better armed, better organized, better educated, more influential, and better equipped than the Taliban could ever hope to be."

*headdesk*

"the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken."

This seems to suggest then that a large number of independent field officers from the U.S. military and intelligence services simultaneously and indiscriminately rounded up random Afghanis, Yeminites, Saudis and even Chinese laymen for the sole purpose of imprisoning them at Guantanamo Bay.  That's a conspiracy.  Like all grand conspiracies, its flaw is in volume.

[Zeradul]

The only reason war wasn't declared was because the U.S. government has never recognized (and would not recognize) the national authority of the Taliban.

Since when can we only declare war against nations?

-----

The reason I had to compare the Taliban to the mafia (as far as threat posed) is because you continue to avoid responding to my charge that the Taliban are a bunch of punks with no significant military assets.  Why have we gone abroad for a 7+ year war now costing ~2 Trillion so far to deal with a bunch of punks with zero tanks, zero planes, and zero ships.

Our pursuit of them merely increases their recruiting efforts, while emptying our pockets.  Think of what two trillion dollars could have done here at home.

Please explain why the Taliban were worth our blood, our money, our reputation, and our effort.

[rue]

The only reason war wasn't declared was because the U.S. government has never recognized (and would not recognize) the national authority of the Taliban.

Since when can we only declare war against nations?

It's never been done before, so by doing so Congress would have granted the Taliban credit.  In the Bill O'Reilly thread you accused Bill of avoiding a pertinent guest who would have taken Bill to task over the Patriot Act.  I noted here that Bill probably would have if the guy you were talking about (I read a ton of news each day, and I've already forgotten his name) actually had any reputation at all.  The same concept holds here.  If Congress had declared war, the list of nations (and now nations/groups) the U.S. has formally gone to war with would read:  The UK (1812), Mexico (1846), Spain (1898), The Central Powers (1917), The Axis Powers (1941), The Taliban (2001).

See what I mean?

-----

The reason I had to compare the Taliban to the mafia (as far as threat posed) is because you continue to avoid responding to my charge that the Taliban are a bunch of punks with no significant military assets.  Why have we gone abroad for a 7+ year war now costing ~2 Trillion so far to deal with a bunch of punks with zero tanks, zero planes, and zero ships.

Don't confuse my not answering this specious argument with avoidance.  I can assure you it was charity.  

Again, the number is nearly $1 trillion for both Iraq and Afghanistan.  About $300 billion has been spent on Afghanistan.  That and the total includes non military spending used to rebuild the two nations.  

Our pursuit of them merely increases their recruiting efforts,

This is an opinion.  May I ask, though:  Are German terrorists a big problem today?  Why not? We carpet bombed Dresden.   Do we...do we stay up late at night wondering if the Japanese will take out one of our bridges while on our way to work?  Why not?  We dropped the two biggest bombs ever detonated in an act of war on two of their cities.  Why didn't that rally generations and hordes of terrorist organizations?  

We rebuilt those nations.  See above.

 

while emptying our pockets.  Think of what two trillion dollars could have done here at home.

National economics and fiscal policies do not have zero sum equilibria, Zeradul. Sophistry doesn't make it so.

[Zeradul]

The UK (1812), Mexico (1846), Spain (1898), The Central Powers (1917), The Axis Powers (1941), The Taliban (2001).

See what I mean?

I do not, because this is the heart of my view on this issue.  Your example only seems reasonable as a result of nearly 60 years of absolute incompetence and cowardice by congress.  We should have declared war before the Korean war, Vietnam War, and a half a dozen other times since WWII.

Here's why: It's Congress's job to hash out (AND VOTE!) whether or not we are going to war, what our objective is, who our enemy is, and some sort of goal that would see the war end.  By not doing so, Congress skirts their responsibilities and is allowed to "not take a stance" so that they can continue their 98% incumbency re-elections.  By not voting to declare war on Vietnam, for example, you get douchebags in congress who can then later say they didn't vote for it! and in doing so, escape the risk of not getting re-elected.

1.) If you believe the Taliban are a real threat, then why not declare war on them?

2.) If you think they are too insignificant to declare war, then why even go?

Those two questions are the ones that need to be addressed by Congress BEFORE we decide to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and trillions of dollars to a military purpose.

Again, the number is nearly $1 trillion for both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, but it is widely estimated that we have now committed $2+ (which includes the $1 spent thus far) to the cause, and that we cannot remove ourselves for less than $2 Trillion.  

Are German terrorists a big problem today?  Why not? We carpet bombed Dresden.   Do we...do we stay up late at night wondering if the Japanese will take out one of our bridges while on our way to work?  Why not?  We dropped the two biggest bombs ever detonated in an act of war on two of their cities.  Why didn't that rally generations and hordes of terrorist organizations?  

We rebuilt those nations.  See above.

Rebuilding, yes.  But WWII era Germany AND Japan are so extremely different from the Taliban, a fundamental difference (among literally hundreds of other differences) is the difference in motives.  Germany was primed for WWII by the unfair position it was put in after WWI.  They were put in an exploitable position, oppressive by many definitions, and oppression always leads to discontent, and in the right situation, (enter Hitler) discontent can be misdirected very easily.  The national shame of the Nazi prison camps still looms so large, that pretty much defending any act of the Nazis, or giving the German acts of WWII any credit at all is almost insulting.  In retrospect, Germans weren't "fighting the good fight" and so sure, generations of young Germans grew up without uncles, fathers, grandfathers, etc, but it is hard to be mad at the Allies when the German military was concealing such ruthlessness in the death camps.

Japan, being completely different from Germany, however, far more similar than the Taliban.  For Japan to have attacked a neighbor during peace time, clearly "started the fight".  I have no doubt that the bold stance (and bluff) that we would and could continue to drop nuclear bombs until we had received a surrender no doubt accelerated the end of the war.  I admit to not understanding what could lead tens of thousands of Japanese to "Kamikaze" or sacrifice themselves in similar ways on the battlefield (like climbing up into trees to literally snipe until they died, with no plans of retreat), but I would imagine that such stories of government encouraged sacrifice of the nation's youth did not sit well with all the mothers, and families who lost sons in such a way.  The views of such horrors likely again, led to the view that the fight being fought was not "fighting the good fight", and such sentiment and national shame goes a long way to neutralizing lasting national tension.

Now I am far less educated about the Japanese, but here's where the Taliban differ.  They see themselves as freedom fighters, and the only way to win is to win the "hearts and minds" of not only the Taliban, but also the citizens of the middle east.  The hearts and minds cannot be won when our acts are viewed as inappropriate or unjust.  Also factor in that at least with Germany and Japan, the majority of those nations were highly educated.  The average Taliban fighter is not, and is in fact being led around and coerced to do things via religious dogma and heavy propaganda.

Granted, the question you posed me here is worthy of potentially thousands of hours of discussion and careful study of history, but I feel I have a reasonable grasp on how these situations are extremely different, and how they are not comparable in the least.

In order to "win over" future generations of Afghans we need to somehow illustrate that we are the "good guys" and that yes, we may have been responsible for the death of many of your relatives, but that they were in the wrong.  It's an extremely hard thing to sell, given the conditions, and given the lack of education, and given the increasing distrust of western influences in the region.

National economics and fiscal policies do not have zero sum equilibria, Zeradul.

You are correct, however, the cost-benefit analysis is always relevant as long as we have limited resources to accomplish a given task.