+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    687

    Default The end of the War on Terror

    A long but informative article from 2007 about how the War on Terror might eventually end. The next president will inherit what Obama has made of it; even if it lasts 20 more years, the article is correct in encouraging an end strategy be formed - now.

    The Arab Spring is certainly a good sign, but we can still "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" if we misstep one time too many.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...-terror-be-won

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Notice how the "war on terror" started just as Cold War was winding down, which in turn started just as WW2 ended, which.....


    Fact is, there aren't any "terrorists" that couldn't be easily handled by any large American town's part time "SWAT" team, yet we have a bigger military budget than when we were facing thousands of Soviet nuke tipped ICBMs and hundreds of fighter AND bombers squadrons and hundreds of army divisions, all with lots of heavy weapons, not to mention nuclear missile subs.

    Henry Ford's FoMoCo was the biggest producer of our main heavy bomber of WW2, the B-24 "Liberator"(must flatten city to 'save' it?). At the end of WW2, FoMoCo almost went out of biz (even though I'm pretty sure US war planners would've written Mr Ford a blank check for anything he asked for during WW2).

    In contrast, in the "War on Terror" against a few backward tribesman who fight among each other more than anything else, Senator Feinstein has gone from middle class to billionaire all from sending her husband "no bid" war contracts that don't provide or produce anything I've ever heard about. As far anyone can tell, the Feinstein/Blum Corp only 'marks up' various contracts of actual producers and suppliers, but to do that they need "the fog of war". That is what passes for "Liberal" in San Francisco.



    From FA article "(World War II laid the foundation for lasting peace and prosperity)"

    Really? For who exactly??? Not only were Russians suffering under Communism, but all of Eastern Europe went from "second best place on Earth after Western Europe" to Communist Slave States under Evil Empire. Then you got China going Communist with same mass murders as happened in USSR, along with same destruction of culture and quality of life. India and Pakistan not exactly 'peace OR prosperity'. Africa? Latin America? People that point to USA after WW2 and conflate it with our supposed "post war prosperity" don't think in terms of where we 'should be' if we hadn't sent all that wartime production off to destruction. We probably would have "Flying Cars" by now if the FoMoCo had been completely redirected and expanded into CIVILIAN aviation for a few years in the 1940s.
    Last edited by Squid; 12-28-2013 at 03:32 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    687

    Default

    I've said before that I completely respect the US military, and don't trust defense contractors. Like the guy in the movie said, "Follow the money." There is a LOT of money to be made from war - ask Haliburton, Blackwater (or whatever they are calling themselves now), etc. You can argue whether the "militarization" of the police is good or bad, but again, look at who makes money off of selling Humvees and tanks (I'm sorry, "tactical urban defense vehicles," or whatever they call them) to LAPD and NYPD.

    Even Orwell understood that perpetual war has uses - it disposes of excess population, surplus goods, and keeps the people focused on an external enemy. Very cynical, yes, but a small grain of truth in that.

    Our problem is we can't afford it anymore. While I agree with Bush's (and Obama's) policy of "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them on our soil," we have to have an end game, or we just breed generation after generation of Taliban and Al Qaeda, with no end in sight. As much as we want to, the U.S. can't sustain this effort forever, especially when we have an economy that will never recover to the level of the 1950s, ever.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    437

    Default

    All Arab Spring did is destabilize the region, allowing AQ and the MB to grab more power.

    Squid, the SWAT teams are in no way ready to engage in a full on battle with terrorists. We have too many rules. We don't use the right tools, the military CT units are the only ones trained and prepared for it. Possibly the HRT guys, but they are pretty restricted due to politics as well.

    The reality is this is a Forever War.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Prior to end of "old colonialism", WW2 and creation of Israel, and allowing Muslims/Arabs into Western nations in large numbers, and allowing those besides the ones with modern 'enlightened' outlook.....

    Brits and Frogs were able to administer vast areas and numbers of people in the Mideast with just a few second rate police, since they didn't screw everything up on purpose when they took over from Ottoman Empire.

    In their "Natural State", Muslims and Arabs have very little "Nationalism" or related feelings, and don't much care who "The Government" is as long as it isn't trying to disrupt the "home bodies".

    Even 99% of Arabs outside of Palestine didn't care much about Israel.

    It was a very "hard sell" for Lawrence of Arabia to get any Arabs who had lived in 'subjugation' of Ottoman's interested in anything besides short term personal/family profit. Arabs see themselves as completely logical in that regard, and view Western style nationalism as insane and dangerous, and cult-like.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts