3rd Party Ticket?

#51
#51
TennTradition said:
I think that our actions with regard to the European missile defense system have been extremely cavalier and ill-advised. We have lied to our allies and alarmed an old enemy. I'm not excited about either of these. There is no reason for it.....the system doesn't work well enough to be doing this.
Click to expand...

I would bet every administration has done this on some level.

But I don't know enough about what you are speaking to comment.
 
#53
#53
TennTradition said:
I'm sorry...I was under the impression that the military engaged in contingency planning. My mistake.
Click to expand...
Again, you go about this like this is child's play! This is easily the quickest turnaround in the modern military history of counterinsurgency. In the "most successful counterinsurgency of the modern era" the Brits took 12 years to get the situation in Malaysia solidly under control. We are approaching 5 years in Iraq and by year 7, at the latest, the IA and IP will be conducting all combat patrols with US troops simply serving an advisory and QRF role.

However, I am quite sure that this is not nearly enough instant gratification for you, and that one death is too much for any and all causes.
 
#54
#54
TennTradition said:
I think that our actions with regard to the European missile defense system have been extremely cavalier and ill-advised. We have lied to our allies and alarmed an old enemy. I'm not excited about either of these. There is no reason for it.....the system doesn't work well enough to be doing this.
Click to expand...
I am going to assume you are speaking of Russia. And, if you think this is why Russia and the US are not buddy-buddy then you are living in a fantasy land.
 
#55
#55
allvol123 said:
I would bet every administration has done this on some level.

But I don't know enough about what you are speaking to comment.
Click to expand...

You're right. Everyone does it. I just really dislike Bush - I can't help but feel like he gets enjoyment out of it (entirely irrational...and nothing I would actually defend).

I (and others) think that our allies and the Russians caught us in a lie over whether or not our missile interceptors in Poland could intercept Russian ICBMs. We want to put them there to defend us and Europe against Iranian missiles...and we claimed to everyone that we couldn't intercept Russian missiles with this system, emphatically. The truth appears to be different, which peeved our allies off because many of them rely on decent Russian relations for their energy supply.
 
#56
#56
TennTradition said:
I (and others) think that our allies and the Russians caught us in a lie over whether or not our missile interceptors in Poland could intercept Russian ICBMs. We want to put them there to defend us and Europe against Iranian missiles...and we claimed to everyone that we couldn't intercept Russian missiles with this system, emphatically. The truth appears to be different, which peeved our allies off because many of them rely on decent Russian relations for their energy supply.
Click to expand...

OK, I remember some of this now. I have to say, it makes me much happier to know that we can do this, intercept Russian ICBMs.
 
#57
#57
therealUT said:
Again, you go about this like this is child's play! This is easily the quickest turnaround in the modern military history of counterinsurgency. In the "most successful counterinsurgency of the modern era" the Brits took 12 years to get the situation in Malaysia solidly under control. We are approaching 5 years in Iraq and by year 7, at the latest, the IA and IP will be conducting all combat patrols with US troops simply serving an advisory and QRF role.

However, I am quite sure that this is not nearly enough instant gratification for you, and that one death is too much for any and all causes.
Click to expand...

Nope....I would challenge you to find statements I have made that would support that claim.

I'm sure that I could learn a lot from you about our planning and response in Iraq....and I do not want to imply that I could do a better job.

I'm actually quite resigned on Iraq these days - I honestly don't know what the best thing to do is. I will be honest and say that I was very uneasy about this war being fought. I was not a fan of it - especially while we had troops on the ground in Afghanistan. I'm sensitive to the problems that Hussein presented to the minorities in Iraq and his potential threat to the US. I just can't honestly say that I was behind the invasion when we decided to do it. At this point, I generally don't get spun up about it because I have no basis for it .... I have no idea what would happen if we left tomorrow or if we stayed for 20 years. I've just resigned to letting those that are payed to make those decisions go with it ... and hope that the Pentagon gets this one right (if the Congress and President let them).
 
#58
#58
TennTradition said:
You're right. Everyone does it. I just really dislike Bush - I can't help but feel like he gets enjoyment out of it (entirely irrational...and nothing I would actually defend).

I (and others) think that our allies and the Russians caught us in a lie over whether or not our missile interceptors in Poland could intercept Russian ICBMs. We want to put them there to defend us and Europe against Iranian missiles...and we claimed to everyone that we couldn't intercept Russian missiles with this system, emphatically. The truth appears to be different, which peeved our allies off because many of them rely on decent Russian relations for their energy supply.
Click to expand...

We don't have to defend Europe. Let them defend themselves.
 
#59
#59
allvol123 said:
OK, I remember some of this now. I have to say, it makes me much happier to know that we can do this, intercept Russian ICBMs.
Click to expand...

That's my problem, we can't! Or - we can't on a scale that is even remotely what would be required. The Russians are less upset about the capability (because they know it doesn't work)...my guess is that they are unhappy because this seems like a very irrational move by us to them ... and MAD is founded on rational behavior of the enemy....and strategic planners tend to be paranoid by nature, thus...Russia gets jumpy.
 
#60
#60
therealUT said:
I am going to assume you are speaking of Russia. And, if you think this is why Russia and the US are not buddy-buddy then you are living in a fantasy land.
Click to expand...

I would not say that this is the reason for it, but I would also argue that it doesn't make the situation better. My main argument was about lying to our allies.
 
#61
#61
Rasputin_Vol said:
Explain. They trade what?
Click to expand...

They would essentially trade cash (or future emissions, perhaps) for permits to emit more. The idea is that the company that sells them permits can use that cash to reduce their emissions more cheaply than the first company.
 
#63
#63
TennTradition said:
That's my problem, we can't! Or - we can't on a scale that is even remotely what would be required. The Russians are less upset about the capability (because they know it doesn't work)...my guess is that they are unhappy because this seems like a very irrational move by us to them ... and MAD is founded on rational behavior of the enemy....and strategic planners tend to be paranoid by nature, thus...Russia gets jumpy.
Click to expand...

I misread your initial "the truth appears to be different".
 
#64
#64
This only happens when someone with unlimited funds i.e. Perot or Forbes, decides to get into the race. I don't hear that type of person's name being mentioned.
 
#65
#65
allvol123 said:
I misread your initial "the truth appears to be different".
Click to expand...

Actually, you probably read that correctly. The truth appears to be that our interceptors could catch up with a Russian ICBM ... and if the technology actually worked...could intercept and destroy it. The second "truth" (because I can't prove it) is that the technology isn't reliable, or perhaps I should say is easily fooled .... and even if we did catch up with their missile, we (way) more than likely couldn't pick out the warhead and destroy it.
 
#66
#66
TennTradition said:
They would essentially trade cash (or future emissions, perhaps) for permits to emit more. The idea is that the company that sells them permits can use that cash to reduce their emissions more cheaply than the first company.
Click to expand...

Yeah... that's where I figured you were going.
 
#68
#68
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yeah... that's where I figured you were going.
Click to expand...

But...like I said....whether you would support a system like this really does come back to whether you see CO2 emissions as a problem. I pretty strongly believe that we will see more and more US policies that reflect this belief....but I could be off base. We'll see I guess.
 
#70
#70
TennTradition said:
But...like I said....whether you would support a system like this really does come back to whether you see CO2 emissions as a problem. I pretty strongly believe that we will see more and more US policies that reflect this belief....but I could be off base. We'll see I guess.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you on that point. We will definetly see more movement in that direction. But like you have pointed out, I'm not a believer in the notion that man-made CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming/climate change.
 
#71
#71
Rasputin_Vol said:
Oh, I agree with you on that point. We will definetly see more movement in that direction. But like you have pointed out, I'm not a believer in the notion that man-made CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming/climate change.
Click to expand...

It's cow flatulence. If you eat a steak, you're going to hell.
 
#75
#75
And...for the record, trUT....I don't mean or want to trivialize the process of deciding to go to war and implementing the decided upon strategy. While I don't understand fully how the process works, I do understand it isn't easy or always clear. I think that my fundamental problem is that going to war in Iraq seemed like a bad idea at the time - and when combined with the surprises that we apparently weren't prepared for, it began to seem like a really bad idea. I will always get more upset about the trumped up nuclear WMD charges than mistakes in estimating the after-invasion posture/environment in Iraq...because at least the latter were honest mistakes.

You may disagree with me on this, but it's where I'm coming from on this issue...and comments made from that position aren't meant to demean the military, trivialize war, or suggest that a pacifist strategy is appropriate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top