The drums of war. When should we beat them? (weapons, regime, highway)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberal or conservative, we've all got to well remember how we ended up invading Iraq, contrary to much objection by both liberals and conservatives. Right?
Do you consider yourself to be intelligent?
Just curious, because if you do, you know, consider yourself intelligent, then you should be able to follow along easily.
In fact, anyone with an IQ of 100+ should be able to follow along.
There's something called Geo-Political Strategy. Not every State has one, because they are costly, not only in terms of actual money needed to implement and maintain the strategy, but also in terms of resources and manpower needed to carry it out.
Norway does not have one. Norway only has 5 Million people, a little less than Cook County, Illinois. Norway just doesn't have the money, manpower or resources to maintain global reconnaissance assets like spy satellites and planes, or intelligence agencies to collect and analyze Millions of pieces of electronic and human intelligence and Norway has no means of projecting power.
You can project power in different ways. Economically, politically or through currency or aircraft carriers and blue-water navies to name but a few.
As you would expect, only the US, Russia and China are the real players in Geo-Strategy. Britain and France could, and to a lesser extent, Australia, Spain, Italy, Brasil and Japan potentially could, but those States focus more on regional strategy instead of a global strategy.
The purpose of a Geo-Strategy is to envision the near- and far-Future, about 25-35 years from now, and then take the actions necessary to shape the World to fit the vision you have created.
For that reason, Presidents have no control over Geo-Strategy. That's strictly the purview of the Bureaucrats. You can't be changing Geo-Strategy every 4-8 years, because that would cost $TRILLIONs, leave you with no cogent strategy and weak, unprotected and vulnerable, not to mention being totally reactive instead of proactive.
Yeah, it's exactly like a chess match. Once you make that opening move, you're stuck to the bitter end, win, lose or draw.
You had a strategy, the Pacific Rim Strategy, but after many decades, it became painfully obvious that this strategy was going to be a massive failure, and further expenditure of monies, manpower and resources was fruitless. So, in the late 1960s, you abandoned that and shifted to your current strategy.
To date, your current Geo-Strategy has been 100% successful.
You've accomplished all of your goals thus far.
If you seriously believe Iraq and Afghanistan are failures, it's because you're totally clueless and don't understand.
You're there, aren't you?
Yeah, well, that's the whole freaking point. Get it?
Because you are there, you're ready to intervene politically and military in an instant for any reason or no reason at all.
It's QB-KB4.
That's exactly what you've done. The Queen's Bishop is sitting there ready to pounce in an instant. And you'll be there as long as you need to be, seeing how no one is going to drive you out.
The US has driven the Russians out of the Mediterranean thanks to Clinton, George H and Obama.
Syria isn't really an issue. The US would prefer to have control of Syria, but it's not absolutely essential. That could change though. If the Russians moved certain missile systems to Syria, that might be a game-changer and force the US to gain control of Syria.
Aside from that, Iran is the next piece of the puzzle. The US needs control of Iran so that it has unfettered air, sea, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean to the Five Central Asian States.
A conglomerate of Amoco, British Petroleum, Chevron and UNOCAL (Union Oil of California) acquired the rights to 75% of the petroleum, metal ores and non-metallic minerals there. Since then, Amoco bought BP and Chevron bought UNOCAL so it's just a consortium of Amoco and Chevron. Total (French), Gazprom (Russia) and a Chinese company own the rights to the other 25%.
You don't need to have your hands on it, you just need to control, because you don't at this time.
Once you control Iran, you can push your hegemony on Central Asia, and then from there attack the eastern Russian republics. It's very easy to smuggle weapons, equipment and supplies to the "pro-democracy" groups you'll be channeling money to through various entities. It'll be like "Arab Spring" except this will be "Indigenous People's Spring" since it's mostly indigenous peoples who live there.
Note that I don't personally support this, I'm just explaining the "How & Why" of it all, so you can understand.
You should also understand that if you fail in this strategy, your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell.
On the other hand, if you're successful, you'll be on easy street for the rest of this century and into the next one.
Your government knows that, and it would prefer to deal with happy shiny Americans instead of dismal dreary Americans rioting every 5 minutes and that's quite clear here:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
I suppose the real question is, "What have you done?" My guess is you're living larger than you were 16+ years ago when those things happened and what that tells me is deep down, you're all for it, even though you might not like it.
I suppose we could just send up a white flag and isolate ourselves until some country steps up to rule over us by force. Listening to democrats tells us America has never been that great anyway there's nothing really worth protecting, I suppose !!! Democrats open border stance to replace citizens that won't vote for them is consistent with reasons not to defend ourselves or anyone else who is threated with violence.
Yes, I suppose we can just give up and throw the last 200 plus years on the trash heap and admit the experiment was a failure. I suppose...….. or we could fight for our way of life against those who would defeat and enslave us !!! Now there is a novel concept !!!
Most of our wars have not been in self defense but wars for protecting the WELFARE of other countries.
How come other countries are entitled to US tax dollar for their WELFARE but when it comes our country and the peoples WELFARE brings up people foaming at the mouth?
I've been saying this for a while now but with Bolton on board there is no doubt that he will seek a way to start a war with Iran even if the US has to secretly bomb oil tankers in the Gulf.
"War is a nasty business." To say the least, and because it should be avoided whenever possible, we must also not make the mistake I think you are making...
Rather than excuse our mistakes with the likes of "credible intelligence," let's more seriously and willingly consider where we tend to go wrong.
Colin Powell: U.N. Speech “Was a Great Intelligence Failure”
"Colin Powell has called his 2003 speech to the United Nations, laying out the Bush administration’s rationale for war in Iraq, a “blot” on his record. The speech set out to detail Iraq’s weapons program, but as the intelligence would later confirm, that program was nonexistent.
More than 13 years later, the speech continues to haunt the administration — not just for what it got wrong, but for the unintended consequences it may have set in motion.
Powell’s U.N. speech helped elevate Zarqawi’s status, and within months, he was rapidly gaining followers in Iraq, fomenting sectarian warfare and laying the groundwork for the organization that would become ISIS."
It is exactly because we make these mistakes, because even our intelligence can be flawed and because we can't control unintended consequences that we really MUST exercise much better judgement from start to finish!
the intelligence about iraqi WMD programs was not just ours alone, but various intelligence agencies around the world, including saudi arabia, the european union, russia, various african nations, and china among others. this was not just the CIA or other US alphabet agencies saying this.
and monday morning quarterbacking is always perfect. but realize that saddam had plenty of time to move his WMD programs out of the country before, and during, the invasion.
Liberal or conservative, we've all got to well remember how we ended up invading Iraq, contrary to much objection by both liberals and conservatives. Right? Now too all this with Iran. When do we stop accepting this sort of executive lead toward war rather than perhaps requiring at least some better level of scrutiny and strategy? Perhaps better suited for Congress at least?
Just Trump now instead?
I mean aside from all other innocents who are likely to die as a result of these sorts of conflicts, American soldiers are both liberal and conservative and deserving of better reasons to put their lives on the line...
US gears up for war with Iran
Can a state that condemns, without real justification, an international disarmament treaty it spent years negotiating then threaten a co-signatory with military aggression? Can it order other countries to fall into line with its capricious, bellicose stance or face punitive sanctions?
We should wait until Trump actually proposes going to war before denouncing him as a war-monger. I doubt that he will ever try to go to war with Iran. One of the three planks of Steve Bannon, his 'chief strategist' was 'stay out of pointless foreign wars.' (the other two planks were addressing of immigration and bringing back manufacturing).
My guess is that if anything, Trump will opt for the single strike, similar to what Reagan did in Libya, or Obama did regarding Bin Laden. There is also the option of using the CIA, as Ike did in Iran, but that option seems to have fallen out of favor.
Wait till he actually does something, or at least proposes something, before raising a screaming howl.
Most of our wars have not been in self defense but wars for protecting the WELFARE of other countries.
How come other countries are entitled to US tax dollar for their WELFARE but when it comes our country and the peoples WELFARE brings up people foaming at the mouth?
Maybe b/c if everyone is on welfare there won't be anyone to build the country !!!
Yet, that is exactly what the left wants by putting gov. in charge of their life and be dependent on gov. for everything !!! Cradle to grave gov. dependent !!!
Did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc...…….avoid war ? No they killed tens of millions more people with their ideology.
Just curious, because if you do, you know, consider yourself intelligent, then you should be able to follow along easily.
In fact, anyone with an IQ of 100+ should be able to follow along.
There's something called Geo-Political Strategy. Not every State has one, because they are costly, not only in terms of actual money needed to implement and maintain the strategy, but also in terms of resources and manpower needed to carry it out.
Norway does not have one. Norway only has 5 Million people, a little less than Cook County, Illinois. Norway just doesn't have the money, manpower or resources to maintain global reconnaissance assets like spy satellites and planes, or intelligence agencies to collect and analyze Millions of pieces of electronic and human intelligence and Norway has no means of projecting power.
You can project power in different ways. Economically, politically or through currency or aircraft carriers and blue-water navies to name but a few.
As you would expect, only the US, Russia and China are the real players in Geo-Strategy. Britain and France could, and to a lesser extent, Australia, Spain, Italy, Brasil and Japan potentially could, but those States focus more on regional strategy instead of a global strategy.
The purpose of a Geo-Strategy is to envision the near- and far-Future, about 25-35 years from now, and then take the actions necessary to shape the World to fit the vision you have created.
For that reason, Presidents have no control over Geo-Strategy. That's strictly the purview of the Bureaucrats. You can't be changing Geo-Strategy every 4-8 years, because that would cost $TRILLIONs, leave you with no cogent strategy and weak, unprotected and vulnerable, not to mention being totally reactive instead of proactive.
Yeah, it's exactly like a chess match. Once you make that opening move, you're stuck to the bitter end, win, lose or draw.
You had a strategy, the Pacific Rim Strategy, but after many decades, it became painfully obvious that this strategy was going to be a massive failure, and further expenditure of monies, manpower and resources was fruitless. So, in the late 1960s, you abandoned that and shifted to your current strategy.
To date, your current Geo-Strategy has been 100% successful.
You've accomplished all of your goals thus far.
If you seriously believe Iraq and Afghanistan are failures, it's because you're totally clueless and don't understand.
You're there, aren't you?
Yeah, well, that's the whole freaking point. Get it?
Because you are there, you're ready to intervene politically and military in an instant for any reason or no reason at all.
It's QB-KB4.
That's exactly what you've done. The Queen's Bishop is sitting there ready to pounce in an instant. And you'll be there as long as you need to be, seeing how no one is going to drive you out.
The US has driven the Russians out of the Mediterranean thanks to Clinton, George H and Obama.
Syria isn't really an issue. The US would prefer to have control of Syria, but it's not absolutely essential. That could change though. If the Russians moved certain missile systems to Syria, that might be a game-changer and force the US to gain control of Syria.
Aside from that, Iran is the next piece of the puzzle. The US needs control of Iran so that it has unfettered air, sea, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean to the Five Central Asian States.
A conglomerate of Amoco, British Petroleum, Chevron and UNOCAL (Union Oil of California) acquired the rights to 75% of the petroleum, metal ores and non-metallic minerals there. Since then, Amoco bought BP and Chevron bought UNOCAL so it's just a consortium of Amoco and Chevron. Total (French), Gazprom (Russia) and a Chinese company own the rights to the other 25%.
You don't need to have your hands on it, you just need to control, because you don't at this time.
Once you control Iran, you can push your hegemony on Central Asia, and then from there attack the eastern Russian republics. It's very easy to smuggle weapons, equipment and supplies to the "pro-democracy" groups you'll be channeling money to through various entities. It'll be like "Arab Spring" except this will be "Indigenous People's Spring" since it's mostly indigenous peoples who live there.
Note that I don't personally support this, I'm just explaining the "How & Why" of it all, so you can understand.
You should also understand that if you fail in this strategy, your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell.
On the other hand, if you're successful, you'll be on easy street for the rest of this century and into the next one.
Your government knows that, and it would prefer to deal with happy shiny Americans instead of dismal dreary Americans rioting every 5 minutes and that's quite clear here:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
I suppose the real question is, "What have you done?" My guess is you're living larger than you were 16+ years ago when those things happened and what that tells me is deep down, you're all for it, even though you might not like it.
Interesting analysis, and while I agree Central Asian countries is the ultimate goal, this will not happen in the foreseeable future. You are referring to the Brzezinski's theory that says that central Asia is key for global domination. This is of course wrong, this is just a key to dominate Russia and they will never allow it.
And yes, Iraq is a failure. They continue to diss the US and are friends with Iran. So regime change in Iran is mainly pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia; an miscalculation by war hawks as things are not as exact as you seem to suggest. I even believe they will start a war with China before they can take Iran. The reason for this is that Russia would rather side with Iran and not with China if either of them was attacked.
Just curious, because if you do, you know, consider yourself intelligent, then you should be able to follow along easily.
In fact, anyone with an IQ of 100+ should be able to follow along.
There's something called Geo-Political Strategy. Not every State has one, because they are costly, not only in terms of actual money needed to implement and maintain the strategy, but also in terms of resources and manpower needed to carry it out.
Norway does not have one. Norway only has 5 Million people, a little less than Cook County, Illinois. Norway just doesn't have the money, manpower or resources to maintain global reconnaissance assets like spy satellites and planes, or intelligence agencies to collect and analyze Millions of pieces of electronic and human intelligence and Norway has no means of projecting power.
You can project power in different ways. Economically, politically or through currency or aircraft carriers and blue-water navies to name but a few.
As you would expect, only the US, Russia and China are the real players in Geo-Strategy. Britain and France could, and to a lesser extent, Australia, Spain, Italy, Brasil and Japan potentially could, but those States focus more on regional strategy instead of a global strategy.
The purpose of a Geo-Strategy is to envision the near- and far-Future, about 25-35 years from now, and then take the actions necessary to shape the World to fit the vision you have created.
For that reason, Presidents have no control over Geo-Strategy. That's strictly the purview of the Bureaucrats. You can't be changing Geo-Strategy every 4-8 years, because that would cost $TRILLIONs, leave you with no cogent strategy and weak, unprotected and vulnerable, not to mention being totally reactive instead of proactive.
Yeah, it's exactly like a chess match. Once you make that opening move, you're stuck to the bitter end, win, lose or draw.
You had a strategy, the Pacific Rim Strategy, but after many decades, it became painfully obvious that this strategy was going to be a massive failure, and further expenditure of monies, manpower and resources was fruitless. So, in the late 1960s, you abandoned that and shifted to your current strategy.
To date, your current Geo-Strategy has been 100% successful.
You've accomplished all of your goals thus far.
If you seriously believe Iraq and Afghanistan are failures, it's because you're totally clueless and don't understand.
You're there, aren't you?
Yeah, well, that's the whole freaking point. Get it?
Because you are there, you're ready to intervene politically and military in an instant for any reason or no reason at all.
It's QB-KB4.
That's exactly what you've done. The Queen's Bishop is sitting there ready to pounce in an instant. And you'll be there as long as you need to be, seeing how no one is going to drive you out.
The US has driven the Russians out of the Mediterranean thanks to Clinton, George H and Obama.
Syria isn't really an issue. The US would prefer to have control of Syria, but it's not absolutely essential. That could change though. If the Russians moved certain missile systems to Syria, that might be a game-changer and force the US to gain control of Syria.
Aside from that, Iran is the next piece of the puzzle. The US needs control of Iran so that it has unfettered air, sea, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean to the Five Central Asian States.
A conglomerate of Amoco, British Petroleum, Chevron and UNOCAL (Union Oil of California) acquired the rights to 75% of the petroleum, metal ores and non-metallic minerals there. Since then, Amoco bought BP and Chevron bought UNOCAL so it's just a consortium of Amoco and Chevron. Total (French), Gazprom (Russia) and a Chinese company own the rights to the other 25%.
You don't need to have your hands on it, you just need to control, because you don't at this time.
Once you control Iran, you can push your hegemony on Central Asia, and then from there attack the eastern Russian republics. It's very easy to smuggle weapons, equipment and supplies to the "pro-democracy" groups you'll be channeling money to through various entities. It'll be like "Arab Spring" except this will be "Indigenous People's Spring" since it's mostly indigenous peoples who live there.
Note that I don't personally support this, I'm just explaining the "How & Why" of it all, so you can understand.
You should also understand that if you fail in this strategy, your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell.
On the other hand, if you're successful, you'll be on easy street for the rest of this century and into the next one.
Your government knows that, and it would prefer to deal with happy shiny Americans instead of dismal dreary Americans rioting every 5 minutes and that's quite clear here:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
I suppose the real question is, "What have you done?" My guess is you're living larger than you were 16+ years ago when those things happened and what that tells me is deep down, you're all for it, even though you might not like it.
Unfortunately, I don't have time this morning to delve into the likes of all this including the link to the "Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy" but I will be interested in looking a little closer at this maybe on Monday. Off to do some traveling this weekend. Meanwhile, I'm sure somewhere in all this reading it will be clear how and why we enter into a nuclear agreement with Iran and our other allied signatories, then renege, only to increase tensions that are all too likely to lead to unknown consequences...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
