Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture

[saden1]

Even the DoD knows violence (military action) is not a good solution to solving the terrorism threat so all you couch six star generals ain't got no cloths. Just ask the Russians, they'll tell you you're naked.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Even the DoD knows violence (military action) is not a good solution to solving the terrorism threat so all you couch six star generals ain't got no cloths. Just ask the Russians, they'll tell you you're naked.

What the report fails to address in the proverbial "nuclear option". If we wanted we could go the way of dictators and simply kill every freaking last one of them. That isn't our way though.

But yeah in the long run our national discussion needs to change towards newer more favorable methods for fighting this stuff. Practical methods that can work. The first thing we need to get straight on though is expectations. We cannot expect to ever make everyone happy. There will never be peace in the world. At least in a world of 7 billion humans beings all with competing interests. And where there are unhappy people there will be undoubtedly some crazy people and unhappy crazy people blow up buses and fly planes into buildings. We have to accept that we can't end terrorism we can only hope to contain it.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Even the DoD knows violence (military action) is not a good solution to solving the terrorism threat so all you couch six star generals ain't got no cloths. Just ask the Russians, they'll tell you you're naked.

And you were questioning Trample's reading comprehension.....

This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.

However it encourages; "....special operations against high-value targets." Anytime Special Ops are involved you can be pretty sure "violence" is involved.

The USSR had a totally different reason for being in Afghanistan than we do. They were attempting to expand their empire. We are responding to the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. The USSR tried to take over Afghanistan. We are attempting to allow the people of Afghanistan to control their own country and form a stable democracy.

We went into Afghanistan and Iraq, nothing can change that. What do you suggest we do now, just pull out and leave a HUGE void that will certainly be filled by extremists/terrorists? There is a reason Iran is funding and supporting terrorist groups efforts to de-stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

And you were questioning Trample's reading comprehension.....

This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.

However it encourages; "....special operations against high-value targets." Anytime Special Ops are involved you can be pretty sure "violence" is involved.

The USSR had a totally different reason for being in Afghanistan than we do. They were attempting to expand their empire. We are responding to the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. The USSR tried to take over Afghanistan. We are attempting to allow the people of Afghanistan to control their own country and form a stable democracy.

We went into Afghanistan and Iraq, nothing can change that. What do you suggest we do now, just pull out and leave a HUGE void that will certainly be filled by extremists/terrorists? There is a reason Iran is funding and supporting terrorist groups efforts to de-stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure, we are, "attempting to allow the people of Afghanistan to control their own country and form a stable democracy." However, the study shows our efforts (U.S. military intervention) are, "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible."

So, we need to change what we're doing. In essence, we need to abandon, "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world." Instead, we should, "focus [our] priorities on improving 'civil governance' and building 'local security forces,' according to the report, referring to those steps as 'capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.'"

That is what the study says.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Sure, we are, "attempting to allow the people of Afghanistan to control their own country and form a stable democracy." However, the study shows our efforts (U.S. military intervention) are, "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible."

So, we need to change what we're doing. In essence, we need to abandon, "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world." Instead, we should, "focus [our] priorities on improving 'civil governance' and building 'local security forces,' according to the report, referring to those steps as 'capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.'"

That is what the study says.

I think it says compassion is the path to peace and righteousness . If special forces could eliminate terrorism they would have. Special forces is a precision tool whose value in the short term I am not willing to deny but in the long term it is worthless if you're dealing with free range lemmings.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

So, we need to change what we're doing. In essence, we need to abandon, "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world." Instead, we should, "focus [our] priorities on improving 'civil governance' and building 'local security forces,' according to the report, referring to those steps as 'capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.'"

That is what the study says.

OK, we agree on what the study says.

From my post: This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.

However, "we" (the U.S.) shouldn't be in the business of nation-building. Unfortunately at this point we are stuck getting Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized, but this shouldn't be our policy going forward. I don't think a big group hug with Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists is going to help the situation either.

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

OK, we agree on what the study says.

From my post: This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.

However, "we" (the U.S.) shouldn't be in the business of nation-building. Unfortunately at this point we are stuck getting Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized, but this shouldn't be our policy going forward. I don't think a big group hug with Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists is going to help the situation either.

While it shouldn't, this is gonna be going on for years to come. Iraq and Aftgan are not even done, and NKorea and Iran will soon be in the works. On the brightside it should help provide more jobs.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

I think it says compassion is the path to peace and righteousness . If special forces could eliminate terrorism they would have. Special forces is a precision tool whose value in the short term I am not willing to deny but in the longer term it is worthless if you're dealing with free range lemmings.

Dang I laughed so hard when I read your first line the others in my office wanted to hear the joke. Thats what Obama has been saying about Iran and N Korea and every day they are testing new stuff like never before. What to fear anymore? The UN.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

He probably would. I watched the video, and it seemed to me that he accepted what is.

Funny thing is, there is no Nick Berg -- only the One Life, the One Energy. Isn't it amazing to think that the atoms in your body were created inside stars?

Dude, I stopped smoking pot a long time ago. What are you talking about? Why don't you post like a normal human being and leave that transcendentalist bs alone, or I'll just be forced to ignore you unless I need a good laugh.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Dude, I stopped smoking pot a long time ago. What are you talking about? Why don't you post like a normal human being and leave that transcendentalist bs alone, or I'll just be forced to ignore you unless I need a good laugh.

You're not fooling anyone...it's okay to admit it...it might even help explain your psychosis.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Dang I laughed so hard when I read your first line the others in my office wanted to hear the joke. Thats what Obama has been saying about Iran and N Korea and every day they are testing new stuff like never before. What to fear anymore? The UN.

What do you have against Jesus' teachings?

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

let's not pretend like hitting back solves everything in the end.

sometimes it works and sometimes it don't but regardless, you, me, him, her, the USA need to stand up and fight back.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Dude, I stopped smoking pot a long time ago. What are you talking about? Why don't you post like a normal human being and leave that transcendentalist bs alone, or I'll just be forced to ignore you unless I need a good laugh.

What you call a "normal" human being is in a constant state of dysfunction. No thanks.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

OK, we agree on what the study says.

From my post: This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.

However, "we" (the U.S.) shouldn't be in the business of nation-building. Unfortunately at this point we are stuck getting Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized, but this shouldn't be our policy going forward. I don't think a big group hug with Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists is going to help the situation either.

If we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for "national security reasons", then we should be in the business of nation-building -- unless we want to fail, because occupation is not working.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

What the report fails to address in the proverbial "nuclear option". If we wanted we could go the way of dictators and simply kill every freaking last one of them. That isn't our way though.

But yeah in the long run our national discussion needs to change towards newer more favorable methods for fighting this stuff. Practical methods that can work. The first thing we need to get straight on though is expectations. We cannot expect to ever make everyone happy. There will never be peace in the world. At least in a world of 7 billion humans beings all with competing interests. And where there are unhappy people there will be undoubtedly some crazy people and unhappy crazy people blow up buses and fly planes into buildings. We have to accept that we can't end terrorism we can only hope to contain it.

Every action has equal and opposite reaction. The equal and opposite reaction to the "nuclear option' is not a pleasant one and that much I am certain of. Maybe we won't feel the reaction immediately, maybe not in 5 years or 10 but eventually the reaction would be at our door step. This isn't merely philosophical musing but a fact of life.