Terror over Detroit
America needs to wake up. Its only a matter of time before one of these maniacs blows himself up in Times Square, or on Rodeo Drive and takes hundreds with him (or her) and truly changes the way we live, forever. Lou Dobbs for President. (or at least, John McCain)
Of course, Still@jones and BG will say it is an isolated incident, just like Texas.
Terrorists are no longer afraid. Because we will not do what is necessary to protect ourselves. That means you should all be afraid now. There are no consequences for these guys.
The world may have hated Bush, but they certainly feared getting caught by his administration. They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration.
Still@Jones believes a lone lunatic will eventually cause a mass terror event which will cost tens or hundreds of thousands of lives. Most likely, this will be carried out using a biological or chemical weapon - although, it could be nuclear.
Saying that waterboarding will protect us is naive. You can’t waterboard enough people in order to reach all the Theo Kaczynskis, Tim McVeighs, and other people who believe they are noble in their pursuit.
I absolutely believe our only effective defense is the trust of the friends, families and acquaintances of these unstable individuals. (that’s how we caught Kaczynski) We need these acquaintances to call the feds when they think their brother or cousin might be out to cause mass harm.
If I were an Arab-American, I would never call the feds even if my brother was clearly unstable. No one would call on their friends or family if they believe he might be tortured. I would call if I thought he would receive the help he needs.
Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don’t share your views on the “terrorists” being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn’t the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?
[quote=Still@jones] Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don’t share your views on the “terrorists” being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn’t the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?
[/quote]
I know you don’t. The reality is the British bow to world opinion. Much like we are now. It certainly isn’t childish.
Why are our soldiers now mirandizing terrorists? We just recently started that. That is an Obama thing. It is obvious from Mr. Obama’s speeches that we are becoming candy-assed.
These people are not civilized. They understand power. Violence. And the threat of violence. And don’t believe that BS that they are not afraid of torture. I’ve never seen a bigger bunch of cowards in my life.
I know I will never convince you. Keep living in the dream world.
My hope was that President Obama would realize the gravity of the situation when he took office. However, it appears he cares more about public opinion (world and national) than he does about doing his job. I hope that he will turn that around.
a lone lunatic is not getting his hands on nuclear weapons. Organized terrorists with money and tentacles all over the place do that.
I dont think we need the "trust" of the friends and family of these lunatics. Nor will we get it. We can get the same information from the terrorist lunatics themselves, and if the only way to do that and protect those tens or hundreds of thousands of American lives is to torture these people into vomiting up their "collegues" then thats what we should do. I didnt know that iur military is now mirandizing terrorists. This is sad. It is insane. They are war criminals who hate us more than they love their children. The slippery slope seems to get steeper every day.[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don’t share your views on the “terrorists” being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn’t the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?
[/quote]
I know you don’t. The reality is the British bow to world opinion. Much like we are now. It certainly isn’t childish.
Why are our soldiers now mirandizing terrorists? We just recently started that. That is an Obama thing. It is obvious from Mr. Obama’s speeches that we are becoming candy-assed.
These people are not civilized. They understand power. Violence. And the threat of violence. And don’t believe that BS that they are not afraid of torture. I’ve never seen a bigger bunch of cowards in my life.
I know I will never convince you. Keep living in the dream world.
My hope was that President Obama would realize the gravity of the situation when he took office. However, it appears he cares more about public opinion (world and national) than he does about doing his job. I hope that he will turn that around.[/quote]
Then, do you believe Russia would be better off if they were more violent? Demonstrated more power? If so, then tell me how this did not prevent the Nord-Ost Siege or Beslan?
No show of military power will dissuade someone who believes they are Davy against Goliath. …and in the flat world, Davy has access to some powerful weapons. You should be afraid of that.
.[/quote]Then, do you believe Russia would be better off if they were more violent? Demonstrated more power? If so, then tell me how this did not prevent the Nord-Ost Siege or Beslan?No show of military power will dissuade someone who believes they are Davy against Goliath. …and in the flat world, Davy has access to some powerful weapons. You should be afraid of that.
Russia is violent. Look at Georgia.
Russia's issues stem from things other than violence. Nobody wants to fcuk with Vlad. How is Russia any different than most Western countries as far as extremists are concerned? I'll answer that for you. They are afraid of Putin. Terrified of him. They know that if they so much as twitch, he will bring the full power of the Russian Bear upon them. That is, they THINK that he will. Threat of violence.
David and Goliath doesn't apply here (fiction). Goliath was big and stupid. I am afraid of Davy with powerful weapons. Because we are not doing enough to stop it. That's WHY you should be afraid Still.
You are missing my point. They are very afraid of Putin, yet Beslan and
Nord-Ost still occurred. London was part of the “coalition of the willing” yet the 7/7
bombings occurred. This seems to disprove your logic.
My D v. G reference was more to people who aren’t afraid to take on a super power no matter how much they flaunt their supremacy. And powerful weapons are no longer difficult to find/make.
The atom bomb is old technology. It is from days before color TVs, before central air conditioning, before cell phones, before space travel… There’s no reason that a guy who knows the physics behind designing a cell phone can not figure out how to build an atomic bomb.
There’s no reason why the guy who knows how to develop new pharmaceuticals can not figure out how to develop a new chemical weapon.
In the future, the enemy will no longer be armies or nations, the enemy will be individuals. And, the best defense against an individual is to hold ourselves to a high standard. I believe this is what Obama is trying to do.
The future that you describe, has arrived. That has been clear for some time, and was made CRYSTAL clear yesterday. The answer is not to take the high road. Thats a nice way of saying be politically correct. With all of our power and might, and intelligence, and CIA, and FBI and Special Forces, and intel from our allies, we should be able to do a much better job of taking these people out than we are doing, except we are "taking the high road". I dont expect that we could eliminate every last terrorist extremist lunatic on earth, but we could be doing a much better job, it seems to me. I am no expert at this stuff, and am not particularly political, but i feel pretty strongly right now, when thinking about my childrens future, that this country is not well served by taking a Liberal, left of center, approachIn the future, the enemy will no longer be armies or nations, the enemy will be individuals. And, the best defense against an individual is to hold ourselves to a high standard. I believe this is what Obama is trying to do.
I think we need more information before you can draw these conclusions about yesterday.
What is irrefutable is that we are not fighting a nation or an army, we are fighting an ideology and a bunch of fringe lunatics. what is irrefutalbe is that there are more and more "close calls" and incidents, inside the U.S. What is irrefutalbe is that there are soooo many extremists INSIDE the U.S., both homegrown and otherwise.
If anyone told me 10 years ago that today we would be facing the threat to our way of life that we face today, i would have thought that THEY were the lunatics. They are gaining a foothold in our country. And it scares me, and it should scare you too. I dont need any more information....i already know more than i want to,.You actually believe “our way of life” is being threatened?
It’s sad that you live a life so full of paranoia.
Our way of life is as sound as ever…
Still@jone, no need to make it personal, do you see me making fun of the fact that your still at jones?>
trust me i aint paranoid. I go about my business, i go to football games, i go to work, and dont worry all day about getting blow iup. I'm not from the canned food and gun crowd. But All its going to take is 1 of them blowing himself up in a subway , heaven forbid, and our lives will change. Just like it did on 9/11 but to another level. Geez, look what happened today - nothing even happened, and within an hour the time you need to check into an airport got a half an hour to an hour longer.What’s funny is I’m not at jones. that’s my irony.
Your post reads like you are scared - so, in my opinion, the terrorists have beat you.
[quote=Sportsfreakbob]They are gaining a foothold in our country. And it scares me, and it should scare you too.) [/quote]
When I read about a plane almost going down; I think that the deaths aboard one plane is equal to the death toll on American highways for 2 days. The “terrorists” will need to blow up 182 planes a year to match the death toll you and I already accept on our highways.
Sure, it sucks when a plane crashes…just like it sucks for the girl hit by a stray bullet, the grandma having a bad reaction to medicine, or the 17 year old girl who was paralyzed in my town this weekend in a car wreck. I do not wish bad things to happen to anyone.
But a guy trying to blow up a plane did not effect “my way of life.”
If it happened every 2 days, it might.
I know you aren;t still at jones but i couldnt resist, besides, i made my point. Anyway, in the interest of keeping this thread intelligent, let me respond.
They havent beaten me. Yeah I;m scared, but in a healthy way. They beat me when they change my way of life. So far they havent done that. But i could see it happening if the current trend continues. I used to travel to Europe 5-6 times a year, thru London, Paris, Frankfurt, Florence and Rome. It was so easy, moving thru airports, changing flights, etc. Now its extremely difficult to even check into the airport for a flight to the Carribean. It starts somewhere, i sense that this has the POTENTIAL to change our lives in a serious way. Thats why i want my leaders to stop worrying about reading war criminals their miranda rights. I want my leaders to focus on destroying these people. Thats all I'm saying. Our nice-nice ways are innappropriate to the current situation we face.[quote=Still@jones]
What’s funny is I’m not at jones. that’s my irony. Your post reads like you are scared - so, in my opinion, the terrorists have beat you. [quote=Sportsfreakbob]They are gaining a foothold in our country. And it scares me, and it should scare you too.) [/quote]When I read about a plane almost going down; I think that the deaths aboard one plane is equal to the death toll on American highways for 2 days. The “terrorists” will need to blow up 182 planes a year to match the death toll you and I already accept on our highways. Sure, it sucks when a plane crashes…just like it sucks for the girl hit by a stray bullet, the grandma having a bad reaction to medicine, or the 17 year old girl who was paralyzed in my town this weekend in a car wreck. I do not wish bad things to happen to anyone. But a guy trying to blow up a plane did not effect “my way of life.” If it happened every 2 days, it might.
[/quote]
You’re worse than 52 - terrorism isn’t the same as any of those things. Apples to oranges. It’s like comparing indy to wire or Jones.
How about the fact that since 9/11, less soldiers have died in war than in peace the previous nine years. That is a statistical fact. Does that mean we should always be at war to save the lives of our soldiers?
It’s a great argument for war.
But no, that isn’t the answer. People dying in car wrecks isn’t the answer. People who die in car accidents die for various reasons.
If a guy blew up a school in your neighborhood, it would affect your way of life.
You are manipulating statistics. From 2003-2008, we lost 2% of our soldiers in Iraq (about 5% of our fighting force). I challenge you to show me any time period since 1976 (excluding Vietnam PTSD casualties) where the death rate even came close to this.
[quote=Still@jones] You are manipulating statistics. From 2003-2008, we lost 2% of our soldiers in Iraq (about 5% of our fighting force). I challenge you to show me any time period since 1976 (excluding Vietnam PTSD casualties) where the death rate even came close to this.
[/quote]
I’m not. They died in peacetime training exercises.
Here’s an easy one:
1980-1985 13,807 deaths
2003-2008 10,011 deaths
Would you agree that 1980 to 1985 was peaceful?
My source is the CRS - liberals.
Also according to the CRS, there have been a total of 5015 deaths COMBINED from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom (Iraq and Afghanistan).
Compare that to the 7500 that were killed from 1993 to 2000.
Here so you can check:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
[quote=Still@jones] You are manipulating statistics. From 2003-2008, we lost 2% of our soldiers in Iraq (about 5% of our fighting force). I challenge you to show me any time period since 1976 (excluding Vietnam PTSD casualties) where the death rate even came close to this.
[/quote]
By the way, 2% of our soldiers would be 30,000 troops, considering that we have 1.5 millions troops.
That’s six times the amount that were actually killed.
Thanks for the information. I like getting hard facts and this is a great source.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
I was referring to losing 2% of the soldiers stationed in Iraq based on the estimated number of people on site; not, 2% of our entire military. I believe this number is still accurate. Iraq is a dangerous place. War doesn’t make our soldiers safer. But, I think you know that.
[quote=Still@jones] Thanks for the information. I like getting hard facts and this is a great source. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
I was referring to losing 2% of the soldiers stationed in Iraq based on the estimated number of people on site; not, 2% of our entire military. I believe this number is still accurate. Iraq is a dangerous place. War doesn’t make our soldiers safer. But, I think you know that. [/quote]
Like I said, more died in training. A paper written by Economist Alex Goldblait broke it down. That the training succeeded.
We have had over 2 million soldiers rotate through Iraq since the inception of the war. It is NOT 2%. And then you said 5% of our fighting force. Your numbers are confusing. Please elaborate.
The conclusion to draw from the statistics is that soldiers are safer at war than at home. Whether that is the reality is another story.
IRAQ is dangerous?! Homicide stats in Chicago from 2001 - 2008 were 4227, only 800 less than died in BOTH wars.
And that is ONE city. Not two countries torn by strife. I wonder if we looked at murders across just eastern seaboard states (approximately the size of Iraq and Afghanistan).
So it is nearly safer to be a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan (Afghanistan for sure!) than it is to be an ordinary citizen in Chicago - a city.
I will guarantee you that less Americans have died in Baghdad.
And yes, this time I am manipulating statistics.
At least you know you are getting carried away with some of your comparisons.
If you have an average of 250,000 soldiers for 5 years, that’s 1,250,000 soldieryears in Iraq. (The equivalent of 1.2MM soldiers in Iraq for one year).
If you have 2.8 million people in Chicago for 5 years, you have 14,000,000 residentyears. (The equivalent of 14MM people in Chicago for one year) - more than 11.2X the exposure. To compare death rates, you need to divide (or multiply) by this factor.
5,000 people died in Iraq & Afghanistan vs. 377 people in Chicago (4,227/11.2). This proves soldiers are significantly more at risk at war…which is already obvious.
[quote=Still@jones]
At least you know you are getting carried away with some of your comparisons. If you have an average of 250,000 soldiers for 5 years, that’s 1,250,000 soldieryears in Iraq. (The equivalent of 1.2MM soldiers in Iraq for one year).If you have 2.8 million people in Chicago for 5 years, you have 14,000,000 residentyears. (The equivalent of 14MM people in Chicago for one year) - more than 11.2X the exposure. To compare death rates, you need to divide (or multiply) by this factor. 5,000 people died in Iraq & Afghanistan vs. 377 people in Chicago (4,227/11.2). This proves soldiers are significantly more at risk at war…which is already obvious. [/quote]
Wrong. Over 2 million soldiers, sailors and airmen have rotated through. In 2005, 1.4 million had already rotated through. My guess is it’s closer to 3 million at this point.
Your 2% number is completely false. I still want to know where you get this number from.
As for the Chicago/Iraq comparison, keep in mind that Chicago is only one city and NOT the most violent in the nation. Chicago has a more static population than soldiers rotating through, so the comparisons are a lot closer than you paint.
Airmen rotate every 4 months, Marines every 7, National Guard varies between 9 and 15, Army between 12 and 15. And usually by Brigade (5000 troops or so).
Look who is manipulating statistics now.
But, if you look at the CRS statistics, you already know that it is safer for our troops to be at war, according to numbers. If that is the standard you will use.
Are you going to count the soldiers killed at Ft. Hood as Iraq/Afghanistan, or stateside deaths?
I have a background in statistics…I’m trying to be as objective as possible.
Look at it this way, my number 1.2MM soldier*years.
If the average tour is 1 year that means 1.2MM soldiers have been in Iraq.
If the average tour is 6 months, 2.4MM soldiers have been in Iraq.
I don’t know the real time frame, but this is the best way to compare.
Although, we haven’t even gotten into the fact that those who die in
Chicago are wearing street clothes - those who die in Iraq are wearing
body armor.
but even then, i bet there are neighborhoods in Chicago that are equally dangerous to Iraq.
[quote=Still@jones]Still@Jones believes a lone lunatic will eventually cause a mass terror event which will cost tens or hundreds of thousands of lives. Most likely, this will be carried out using a biological or chemical weapon - although, it could be nuclear.
Saying that waterboarding will protect us is naive. You can’t waterboard enough people in order to reach all the Theo Kaczynskis, Tim McVeighs, and other people who believe they are noble in their pursuit.
I absolutely believe our only effective defense is the trust of the friends, families and acquaintances of these unstable individuals. (that’s how we caught Kaczynski) We need these acquaintances to call the feds when they think their brother or cousin might be out to cause mass harm.
If I were an Arab-American, I would never call the feds even if my brother was clearly unstable. No one would call on their friends or family if they believe he might be tortured. I would call if I thought he would receive the help he needs.
Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don’t share your views on the “terrorists” being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn’t the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?
[/quote]
The father of the person who attempted to bomb the plane from Amsterdam alerted authorities that his son might try to do something. Yet this person was still able to board a plane with an explosive device.
The Homeland Security Department is CRAP!!! Why the f*** do I have to take my shoes off at airports when they don’t even investigate tips??? WTF!!!
[/quote]
The father of the person who attempted to bomb the plane from Amsterdam alerted authorities that his son might try to do something. Yet this person was still able to board a plane with an explosive device.
The Homeland Security Department is CRAP!!! Why the f*** do I have to take my shoes off at airports when they don’t even investigate tips??? WTF!!!
[/quote]
This above quote by Moraen is the essence of my point in starting this thread,,,,The way we are handling this threat, and its a real threat to our way of life, call me paranoid if you want, but it is....anyway, the way we are handling this threat, is a joke. Still@jones, no disrespect meant, but i dont even understand your posts. WTF does a little girl getting hit by a stray bullet, or a grandmother having a bad reaction to medicine, have to do with a terrorist blowing up an airplane or a subway train? You are talking about random, unintentional acts, vs a deliberate attempt to hurt a large amount of people. In fact, what do all these statistics mean? If i am on a train, and the guy next to me pushes a button strapped to his d*** and vaporizes me, i dont care about statistics. If you think that is far fetched, then you are naive.[/quote][quote=still@jones]
The father of the person who attempted to bomb the plane from Amsterdam alerted authorities that his son might try to do something. Yet this person was still able to board a plane with an explosive device.
The Homeland Security Department is CRAP!!! Why the f*** do I have to take my shoes off at airports when they don’t even investigate tips??? WTF!!!
Thank you! You just quoted me.
So i did, my bad. At least thats the way i take your quote (which i thought was Moraens-too many quoters quoting quoters quoting quoters)
So i guess we agree. The government is screwing this whole thing up. The way i take your quote, why bother taking my shoes off, if the govt is acting like it doesnt matter and they are letting the real bad guys on the planes. They dont want to profile, its politically incorrect. They mirandize war criminals, they again, are more worried about being politically correct than catching the bad guys. Or did i take your quote out of context?I guess what I’m saying is that before we start torturing Muslims as they board the plane - let’s get the basic crap right.
How many times during the past 8 years did a plane turn back, in mid air, because there was someone on board who was on the terrorist watch list. (note: the plane is already in the air)
Now we have this guy whose father gave a tip 4 weeks ago that he may be involved in terrorist organizations and DHS missed him. There is no excuse for this. This is what makes me angry.
Profiling, political correctness and Miranda rights are minor issues to me…the fact that this guy got on a plane with an explosive really makes me angry.
Ok. I’ll agree with you on this. DHS is crap.
I will say the reason that he wasn’t on the watch list is because we are afraid of denying a person with a Muslim name a spot on a plane. Imagine the backlash against the administration.
THAT is what should make you angry. Once again, we will not do what it takes because we are afraid of other peoples’ opinions.
Still - i 100% agree with everything in your last post except the last sentence. And the reason is that the stuff in the last sentence is why these guys get away with the crap that they do
Overall i think we are on the same page.
For the record, the administration had nothing to do with the boarding procedures in Nigeria and Amsterdam. To say that our current administration was afraid of negative publicity of letting on a Muslim passenger who was on a watch list would be valid if the flight originated in the US.
With that being said, racial profiling absolutely needs to happen. Every Arab/Muslim looking person with a funny name (myself included) should go through extra security measures and there shouldn't be a problem about it. But the real solution is proper security checks before boarding a plane and here is the reason why. AQ is actively recruting non Arabs to do their dirty work and they easily go under the radar than I would. If we just profile, they slip through. If proper checks are done, they don't slip through. The way to properly check is to have actual military/law enforcement conducting checks and not fat overweight rejects like TSA who have no clue what they're doing. People should expect to wait for HOURS to get properly screened and if they complain and moan, get them the hell out of the airport. Very limited carryon bags (only diapers for babies, medicine for old people, no laptops, etc).And instead of wasting money on raising the salaries of Congress and pork projects,spend billions to hire qualified Air Marshals so that every US flight has at least two trained Marshals with M4's and 9mm's to put hot lead in anyone that even moves funny. Not these stupid rules that they can't get up for the last hour of the flight; that is just so idiotic.
[quote=army13A] For the record, the administration had nothing to do with the boarding procedures in Nigeria and Amsterdam. To say that our current administration was afraid of negative publicity of letting on a Muslim passenger who was on a watch list would be valid if the flight originated in the US.
With that being said, racial profiling absolutely needs to happen. Every Arab/Muslim looking person with a funny name (myself included) should go through extra security measures and there shouldn’t be a problem about it. But the real solution is proper security checks before boarding a plane and here is the reason why. AQ is actively recruting non Arabs to do their dirty work and they easily go under the radar than I would. If we just profile, they slip through. If proper checks are done, they don’t slip through. The way to properly check is to have actual military/law enforcement conducting checks and not fat overweight rejects like TSA who have no clue what they’re doing. People should expect to wait for HOURS to get properly screened and if they complain and moan, get them the hell out of the airport. Very limited carryon bags (only diapers for babies, medicine for old people, no laptops, etc). [/quote]
That’s not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy’s dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That’s a problem with the administration.
Whether it was done because they were afraid of pissing someone off, or simply because they are incompetent (I’m 50/50), I don’t know. What I do know is that when you create an environment that we are willing to do ANYTHING to stop terror, people become afraid.
Like someone said, in our business you have to be willing to do anything. When you go around apologizing and talk about how we’re going to play nice and talk and have tea, then you create an environment that allows people to maybe get a little bold.
Just like my wife’s ex-husband. He thought he could continue to bully her for months after we were married. When I had a nice aggressive conversation in which I told him that I would NOT tolerate him even raising his voice slightly to her, we haven’t had a problem.
As for Congress - pay raises and campaign finance reform. Here is my idea to get them to change:
Start a fund where everybody contributes $5. Which would be over a $1 billion. Lobby Congress to pass a good campaign finance and lower their pay. Here is the catch. If it does NOT pass, the $1 billion goes to the political party that has the highest percentage of votes in FAVOR of the bill.
I will bet anybody $1 million dollars that you can get it passed if you do that.
His name went on a list in McLean and got lost in the abyss. I don't think it had anything to do with the administration. It's the lazy government workers who don't give a rats ass about anything and who don't take their jobs seriously. For example, two of my close friends are State Troopers. We were coming back from a night out on the town when this really shady car was driving recklessly on the highway and one of my friends being an undercover detective realized that it was probably a car that had illegal drugs and a drug dealer. He called in to his station at around 2:50am as we were about 10 miles away from the station to get one of his buddies who was on shift to go out and pursue. He told them everything in full detail and I was getting excited because I haven't had any Hooah action since my Army days. Do you know the response we get? "Hey man, we're off sh*t in ten minutes and we just pulled back into the station. We already started our paperwork to finish the shift." WTF???? We were giving these guys a nice heads up as their station was right on the highway. Take them five minutes to get geared back up and head out because I've done that PLENTY OF TIMES in Iraq. But these guys were lazy as snails. That's government workers for you. When I got calls like that in Iraq, I turned right around without hesitation. You can say he is apologizing and making us look weak but I lived overseas for five years. When me and my buddies went out away from our military installations and had to lie to people about being American ( we were Canadian medical students was our story), that's a problem. It had nothing to do with us not being proud Americans. Every single World Cup match the US played, we had our HUGE American flag right downtown in the city we lived. But once we ventured out into other parts of Europe (Bulgaria, England, Czech Republic), we had to worry about our safety. I do believe that the US is the best country in the world but other countries think that about their own countries as well. So when we sh*t on the rest of the world, it does affect the Americans who are living in other countries and that isn't cool. I don't blame this administration for this. When Obama gave the order to shoot the Somali pirates, was that pussyfooting? And for the record, I'm not a big Obama fan but I don't blame everything on him like my hard core Republican friends just like I didn't blame Bush for everything as my hard core Democrat friends.
That’s not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy’s dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That’s a problem with the administration.
Yeah....maybe so...but the dang dog was so damned cute![quote=Still@jones].[/quote]Then, do you believe Russia would be better off if they were more violent? Demonstrated more power? If so, then tell me how this did not prevent the Nord-Ost Siege or Beslan?No show of military power will dissuade someone who believes they are Davy against Goliath. …and in the flat world, Davy has access to some powerful weapons. You should be afraid of that. [/quote]
Russia is violent. Look at Georgia.
Russia’s issues stem from things other than violence. Nobody wants to fcuk with Vlad. How is Russia any different than most Western countries as far as extremists are concerned? I’ll answer that for you. They are afraid of Putin. Terrified of him. They know that if they so much as twitch, he will bring the full power of the Russian Bear upon them. That is, they THINK that he will. Threat of violence.
David and Goliath doesn’t apply here (fiction). Goliath was big and stupid. I am afraid of Davy with powerful weapons. Because we are not doing enough to stop it. That’s WHY you should be afraid Still.
If the administration bears no burden for this incident, then thats a problem right there.
I can't believe the U.S. Government has no say, or influence over flights that come into our country. Sure maybe not all the fault lays at our door, but we have to be able to control who crosses the border into our country. As for your idea of the military taking over the jobs of the retards that inspect our shoes at the airports, i think thats an awesome idea. Something i would HAPPILY pay higher taxes to pay for. What a novel idea, the military protecting our homeland in wartime! Kudos for that one.[quote=Moraen] That’s not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy’s dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That’s a problem with the administration.
His name went on a list in McLean and got lost in the abyss. I don’t think it had anything to do with the administration. It’s the lazy government workers who don’t give a rats ass about anything and who don’t take their jobs seriously. For example, two of my close friends are State Troopers. We were coming back from a night out on the town when this really shady car was driving recklessly on the highway and one of my friends being an undercover detective realized that it was probably a car that had illegal drugs and a drug dealer. He called in to his station at around 2:50am as we were about 10 miles away from the station to get one of his buddies who was on shift to go out and pursue. He told them everything in full detail and I was getting excited because I haven’t had any Hooah action since my Army days. Do you know the response we get? "Hey man, we’re off sht in ten minutes and we just pulled back into the station. We already started our paperwork to finish the shift." WTF??? We were giving these guys a nice heads up as their station was right on the highway. Take them five minutes to get geared back up and head out because I’ve done that PLENTY OF TIMES in Iraq. But these guys were lazy as snails. That’s government workers for you. When I got calls like that in Iraq, I turned right around without hesitation.
You can say he is apologizing and making us look weak but I lived overseas for five years. When me and my buddies went out away from our military installations and had to lie to people about being American ( we were Canadian medical students was our story), that’s a problem. It had nothing to do with us not being proud Americans. Every single World Cup match the US played, we had our HUGE American flag right downtown in the city we lived. But once we ventured out into other parts of Europe (Bulgaria, England, Czech Republic), we had to worry about our safety. I do believe that the US is the best country in the world but other countries think that about their own countries as well. So when we sht on the rest of the world, it does affect the Americans who are living in other countries and that isn’t cool.
I don’t blame this administration for this. When Obama gave the order to shoot the Somali pirates, was that pussyfooting? And for the record, I’m not a big Obama fan but I don’t blame everything on him like my hard core Republican friends just like I didn’t blame Bush for everything as my hard core Democrat friends. [/quote]
As a military officer you know that sh^t rolls down hill brother. But lazy government workers = lazy leadership.
Squared away battalions usually have squared away BCs.
[quote=Moraen] [quote=army13A] [quote=Moraen] That’s not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy’s dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That’s a problem with the administration. [/quote]
His name went on a list in McLean and got lost in the abyss. I don't think it had anything to do with the administration. It's the lazy government workers who don't give a rats ass about anything and who don't take their jobs seriously. For example, two of my close friends are State Troopers. We were coming back from a night out on the town when this really shady car was driving recklessly on the highway and one of my friends being an undercover detective realized that it was probably a car that had illegal drugs and a drug dealer. He called in to his station at around 2:50am as we were about 10 miles away from the station to get one of his buddies who was on shift to go out and pursue. He told them everything in full detail and I was getting excited because I haven't had any Hooah action since my Army days. Do you know the response we get? "Hey man, we're off sh*t in ten minutes and we just pulled back into the station. We already started our paperwork to finish the shift." WTF???? We were giving these guys a nice heads up as their station was right on the highway. Take them five minutes to get geared back up and head out because I've done that PLENTY OF TIMES in Iraq. But these guys were lazy as snails. That's government workers for you. When I got calls like that in Iraq, I turned right around without hesitation.
You can say he is apologizing and making us look weak but I lived overseas for five years. When me and my buddies went out away from our military installations and had to lie to people about being American ( we were Canadian medical students was our story), that's a problem. It had nothing to do with us not being proud Americans. Every single World Cup match the US played, we had our HUGE American flag right downtown in the city we lived. But once we ventured out into other parts of Europe (Bulgaria, England, Czech Republic), we had to worry about our safety. I do believe that the US is the best country in the world but other countries think that about their own countries as well. So when we sh*t on the rest of the world, it does affect the Americans who are living in other countries and that isn't cool.
I don't blame this administration for this. When Obama gave the order to shoot the Somali pirates, was that pussyfooting? And for the record, I'm not a big Obama fan but I don't blame everything on him like my hard core Republican friends just like I didn't blame Bush for everything as my hard core Democrat friends. [/quote]
As a military officer you know that sh^t rolls down hill brother. But lazy government workers = lazy leadership.
Squared away battalions usually have squared away BCs.[/quote] Yeah! This never would have happened under Republican rule. Um, except... that it did. Oh wait, never mind - that was Clinton's fault. You can't blame an idiot for not knowing he's an idiot.
[quote=Moraen]Start a fund where everybody contributes $5. Which would be over a $1 billion. Lobby Congress to pass a good campaign finance and lower their pay. Here is the catch. If it does NOT pass, the $1 billion goes to the political party that has the highest percentage of votes in FAVOR of the bill.
I will bet anybody $1 million dollars that you can get it passed if you do that.[/quote]
I love this idea, except I am ok with what they get paid.
Campaign finance is where priorities and incentives are completely out of order.
[quote=imabroker][quote=Moraen] [quote=army13A] [quote=Moraen] That’s not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy’s dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That’s a problem with the administration. [/quote]
His name went on a list in McLean and got lost in the abyss. I don't think it had anything to do with the administration. It's the lazy government workers who don't give a rats ass about anything and who don't take their jobs seriously. For example, two of my close friends are State Troopers. We were coming back from a night out on the town when this really shady car was driving recklessly on the highway and one of my friends being an undercover detective realized that it was probably a car that had illegal drugs and a drug dealer. He called in to his station at around 2:50am as we were about 10 miles away from the station to get one of his buddies who was on shift to go out and pursue. He told them everything in full detail and I was getting excited because I haven't had any Hooah action since my Army days. Do you know the response we get? "Hey man, we're off sh*t in ten minutes and we just pulled back into the station. We already started our paperwork to finish the shift." WTF???? We were giving these guys a nice heads up as their station was right on the highway. Take them five minutes to get geared back up and head out because I've done that PLENTY OF TIMES in Iraq. But these guys were lazy as snails. That's government workers for you. When I got calls like that in Iraq, I turned right around without hesitation.
You can say he is apologizing and making us look weak but I lived overseas for five years. When me and my buddies went out away from our military installations and had to lie to people about being American ( we were Canadian medical students was our story), that's a problem. It had nothing to do with us not being proud Americans. Every single World Cup match the US played, we had our HUGE American flag right downtown in the city we lived. But once we ventured out into other parts of Europe (Bulgaria, England, Czech Republic), we had to worry about our safety. I do believe that the US is the best country in the world but other countries think that about their own countries as well. So when we sh*t on the rest of the world, it does affect the Americans who are living in other countries and that isn't cool.
I don't blame this administration for this. When Obama gave the order to shoot the Somali pirates, was that pussyfooting? And for the record, I'm not a big Obama fan but I don't blame everything on him like my hard core Republican friends just like I didn't blame Bush for everything as my hard core Democrat friends. [/quote]
As a military officer you know that sh^t rolls down hill brother. But lazy government workers = lazy leadership.
Squared away battalions usually have squared away BCs.[/quote] Yeah! This never would have happened under Republican rule. Um, except... that it did. Oh wait, never mind - that was Clinton's fault. You can't blame an idiot for not knowing he's an idiot.[/quote]
Bush is to blame for a lot. I will even blame him for 9/11. However, we didn't have terrorists coming out of the wordwork when he was in office after he began to lay the smack down. And I also say that bringing the war to Iraq was a stroke of genius, unlike most others. I was in the hills and cities in Iraq. There was al Qaeda, Hamas, al aqsa Martyrs brigade. Who do you want fighting these folks? Kids on planes, or soldiers who know weapons and tactics?
You know, I was in France in 2006, where I was the typical American. Not only did I discuss my service, but most of the people in France were admiring. I realize had I been in Paris, it would have been different.
I was in the country. It is interesting that people in the cities often don't "get it" when it comes to having to do what is necessary. People that work hard understand sacrifice. People in cities do not, for the most part.
Look at the pundits, they live in cities and don't know sh!t.
[quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen]Start a fund where everybody contributes $5. Which would be over a $1 billion. Lobby Congress to pass a good campaign finance and lower their pay. Here is the catch. If it does NOT pass, the $1 billion goes to the political party that has the highest percentage of votes in FAVOR of the bill.
I will bet anybody $1 million dollars that you can get it passed if you do that.[/quote]
I love this idea, except I am ok with what they get paid.
Campaign finance is where priorities and incentives are completely out of order.
[/quote]
You are ok with what they get paid? Are you ok with their pensions? One term and a nice fat pension?
They get paid too much. As if they don’t have enough privileges. They are servants of the public. $100k would work.
I think I’m going to start a non-profit and ask for donations for campaign finance reform.
They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration thus they are no longer afraid? You are kidding, right? Or did i misunderstand the part about this guy trying to blow himself up? Terrorist aren't afraid of dying in horrible ways, yet they are afraid of George Bush? Unbelievable that people actually believe this! That the terrorist aren't afraid to die is what makes them diabolical. That you fail to see the fallacy in your reasoning is scary. Earthly consequences don't factor into suicide.Of course, Still@jones and BG will say it is an isolated incident, just like Texas.
Terrorists are no longer afraid. Because we will not do what is necessary to protect ourselves. That means you should all be afraid now. There are no consequences for these guys.
The world may have hated Bush, but they certainly feared getting caught by his administration. They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration.
They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration thus they are no longer afraid? You are kidding, right? Or did i misunderstand the part about this guy trying to blow himself up? Terrorist aren't afraid of dying in horrible ways, yet they are afraid of George Bush? Unbelievable that people actually believe this! That the terrorist aren't afraid to die is what makes them diabolical. That you fail to see the fallacy in your reasoning is scary. Earthly consequences don't factor into suicide. [/quote][quote=Moraen]Of course, Still@jones and BG will say it is an isolated incident, just like Texas.
Terrorists are no longer afraid. Because we will not do what is necessary to protect ourselves. That means you should all be afraid now. There are no consequences for these guys.
The world may have hated Bush, but they certainly feared getting caught by his administration. They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration.
Torture is different than choosing your own way to die. It makes little sense to you or I, but I've been with these people and spoken with them.
They will run from a fight because they are frightened and the next day strap on a bomb. It makes little sense, but that is the way of things. Army13A has likely experienced the same things.
BondGuy, like I said before. I like your posts and respect your opinion. But I believe that my experience in this matter is greater than yours. I have arrested, interrogated dozens of these people. Iraqis, Afghanis, Suadis, Yemenis.
It is a different culture and different way of thinking.
Morean is it possible for me to respect your service to our country, but not hold you up as the be-all end-all expert on terrorism? I believe it is. After-all, not one of George Ws closest advisors served in the military. Well, there was Rummy, and you see where that went.
Still, I do respect much of what you have to say, and you bring up a good point; failure to know your enemy. And your point on it being a different culture, a different way of thinking, also true. Not that stopped Bush Incorporated from trying to impose western democratic values on this different thinking culture. Yet, it is not this culture we speak of. It is an aberration from this culture, a cancer from this culture that is the problem. You know first hand that the average Iraqi is a decent person. At least, I assume that you know that. After-all, many of our countrymen, your comrades, died to free these people from oppression. So, please tell me that was for a good cause? As decent as they are the cancer grows. Why? because of our failure to understand these people. We lose the battle for hearts and minds. That's Afghanistan today. As we lose that battle, the one you can't win with an Army the cancer grows. The hate forments, more terrorist are created. They are taught that their reward waits not in this world but the next. They are as sure of that as our children are of 2 plus 2 equals 4. They fear failure not for the consequense of torture or detainment but for the humiliation of not doing God's will. Cutting off the arms of their children will only make them more determined that we are the evil they were born to destroy. You can't fight a twisted ideology with a gun. There is an army of them awaiting their chance to be the passenger in seat 19A. Failure to understand that fact will get many americans killed.[quote=BondGuy]Morean is it possible for me to respect your service to our country, but not hold you up as the be-all end-all expert on terrorism? I believe it is. After-all, not one of George Ws closest advisors served in the military. Well, there was Rummy, and you see where that went. Agree. The war was mismanaged on a strategic basis. I am NOT the be-all-end all expert. However, before I was in this business I was a Security professional (Board certified in Security Mangement) and actually served on a team to present guidelines on airport safety after 9/11. As for Bush, he served as an Air Force officer, Rummy was in the military, and Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Rummy was an arrogant prick. They should have crucified him. While I am not THE expert, I do have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject. More than say, even Tom Ridge or Rudy Guiliani (who thinks he is a security expert because he presided over the attack of his city. More than James Carville (who I think is awesome, even though I disagree with him a lot). Even more than some generals. I would say that knowledge of terrorism and security qualifies me as an expert at least.
Yet, it is not this culture we speak of. It is an aberration from this culture, a cancer from this culture that is the problem. You know first hand that the average Iraqi is a decent person. At least, I assume that you know that. After-all, many of our countrymen, your comrades, died to free these people from oppression. So, please tell me that was for a good cause? Those few who died, did die for a good cause. I feel in my heart and know in my mind that many innocent Americans were saved from their sacrifices. My brother was one such. Most Iraqis are "decent" people. We may not agree that they like to screw goats, but hey. You are right that it is an aberration. And in my capacity as a warrior, I dealt with the scum more than with the goodly people.
As decent as they are the cancer grows. Why? because of our failure to understand these people. We lose the battle for hearts and minds. That's Afghanistan today. As we lose that battle, the one you can't win with an Army the cancer grows. The hate forments, more terrorist are created. They are taught that their reward waits not in this world but the next. They are as sure of that as our children are of 2 plus 2 equals 4. They fear failure not for the consequense of torture or detainment but for the humiliation of not doing God's will. Cutting off the arms of their children will only make them more determined that we are the evil they were born to destroy. You can't fight a twisted ideology with a gun. There is an army of them awaiting their chance to be the passenger in seat 19A. Failure to understand that fact will get many americans killed. [/quote]
You don't attack their children. This is where economics comes into play. When their marginal cost exceeds their marginal benefit, they will stop. While applying rationality to irrational people can be difficult. I think that the cost must be high for them.
Once again, radicals do not VALUE their children like we do. So it would be a mistake to blow them up. What they value is their lives and souls.
I also like to think of it as similar to string theory. String theory states that there are more than 3 dimensions. Possibly eleven.
We only see 3, because that's what we KNOW.
However, that is not to say there are not other dimensions.
The same goes true for knowing our enemy, as you so eloquently put it. Just because we don't see a difference in dying as a suicide bomber and dying before you get a chance to kill Americans, doesn't mean it does not have value for them. My point is that it is difficult to get inside the enemy's head.
Twisted religion can twist minds. Twisted culture can twist minds.
I understand your point of view. And I know it makes sense to you. I will backtrack here and say that I do NOT think your point of view is scary or even ill-informed. My point of view is that when you make it so terrible to commit terrorist acts, you destroy the incentive to commit those acts.
I have probably been way too holier-than-thou on this subject, and for that I apologize to everyone. But I still feel that you cannot talk your way to winning a war.
Moraen,
I tend to believe there are intelligent, rational people in Iraq who are directing the “twisted minds” you speak of. The people you keep mentioning are the foot soldiers - and you are right, these people can not be changed (just like we can’t change the people in Operation Rescue, Greenpeace and the like…)
The resistance in Iraq is most likely being driven by the people who will benefit if the US fails (I’m not sure who this is). These people are probably intelligent, resourceful, wealthy and have advanced knowledge of warfare. I believe Obama is trying to change the tone of the occupation so that these people will stop directing these “twisted minds” to kill American soldiers.
Whatever it is worth…it looks like we will lose about 150 soldiers in Iraq in 2009. This is much less than the 800-900 per year we lost up to 2008. I believe this is a good thing. Really, I believe that!
[quote=Still@jones]
Moraen, I tend to believe there are intelligent, rational people in Iraq who are directing the “twisted minds” you speak of. The people you keep mentioning are the foot soldiers - and you are right, these people can not be changed (just like we can’t change the people in Operation Rescue, Greenpeace and the like…) The resistance in Iraq is most likely being driven by the people who will benefit if the US fails (I’m not sure who this is). These people are probably intelligent, resourceful, wealthy and have advanced knowledge of warfare. I believe Obama is trying to change the tone of the occupation so that these people will stop directing these “twisted minds” to kill American soldiers. Whatever it is worth…it looks like we will lose about 150 soldiers in Iraq in 2009. This is much less than the 800-900 per year we lost up to 2008. I believe this is a good thing. Really, I believe that!
[/quote]
I remember riding in the back of a Bradley to Balad Air Base with a Princeton educated Saudi national. His family was wealthy, and in fact knew some of bin Laden’s sons.
Most of the people in Iraq are indifferent. A small minority love us and a small minority hate us.
Changing the tone will not help. They are like predators. When they sense weakness, they attack.
Like I said, once the war ends, training deaths will rise considerably. Here is why it is safer: 90% of your time you are not engaging the enemy (and that’s if you are combat arms - if you are not, it’s closer to 100%). When you are training for war, you constantly running exercises that can kill you. What does this mean? It means training works. But it also means it is more dangerous to train for war, than to actually BE in a war.
[quote=Moraen] I remember riding in the back of a Bradley to Balad Air Base with a Princeton educated Saudi national. His family was wealthy, and in fact knew some of bin Laden’s sons.
Most of the people in Iraq are indifferent. A small minority love us and a small minority hate us.
Changing the tone will not help. They are like predators. When they sense weakness, they attack.
Like I said, once the war ends, training deaths will rise considerably. Here is why it is safer: 90% of your time you are not engaging the enemy (and that’s if you are combat arms - if you are not, it’s closer to 100%). When you are training for war, you constantly running exercises that can kill you. What does this mean? It means training works. But it also means it is more dangerous to train for war, than to actually BE in a war.
[/quote]
Your logic saying soldiers are safer at war than at peace just does not make sense.
From 1993-2000 there were an average of 1,469,441 soldiers in the military and an average of 938 deaths per year - One death per 1,567 soldiers.
From 2001-2008 there were an average of 1,395,119 soldiers in the
military and an average of 1,643 deaths per year - One death per 849
soldiers. Or, almost twice as many as during the most recent period of peace.
Finally, in Iraq from 2004-2007, there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag. That is significantly more dangerous than peacetime.
Maybe this is something they tell the troops to keep morale up…but it is simply not true.
Go look in the 80’s.
It is true. The study was conducted by three very well-respected economists. Nobody tells soldiers war is safer - that would be stupid and actually BAD for morale.
But if you strip the opinions and emotion out of it - it is true. Sorry buddy, you are wrong on this one.
You are skewing numbers and not using the statistics correctly.
Look at amount of active duty time in 2001-2008 vs. 1993 - 2000. Also, what are called “training days”. Most of the non-combat zone deaths occurred during the “training calendar”. This is a period where there are many live-fire exercises, large scale exercises (JRTC, etc.).
When troops rotate home, they get some time off and then back into the training calendar (where most of the deaths occurred between 2001 - 2008.
[quote=Still@jones] there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag.
This statement is incredibly flawed. Over 800,000 troops rotated through Iraq between 2004-2007.
That’s a little over 1%.
You and I are looking at exactly the same data; and I was surprised at how many peace-time deaths there are, but it still does not make war-time safer any way you look at it.
Sure, the 80’s peace-time was especially more dangerous than the 90’s, but none of the years in the 80’s was more dangerous than the safest year from 2003-2007.
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag.
This statement is incredibly flawed. Over 800,000 troops rotated through Iraq between 2004-2007.
That’s a little over 1%. [/quote]
Let’s say 2,000,000 troops rotated through but the daily average was always 250,000; would the death rate change? Would Iraq be more or less safe? No the dangers and risks would be the same. That’s what I’m saying - it should be based on the average number of troops there. The number of troops that rotate through is arbitrary.
But, beyond this, the reality is the death rate and risk really come down to how aggressive a strategy is employed. The aggression was toned down in 2008 because it was an election year. Do you think a military strategy should change based on the election cycle in the US?
[quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag.
This statement is incredibly flawed. Over 800,000 troops rotated through Iraq between 2004-2007.
That’s a little over 1%. [/quote]Let’s say 2,000,000 troops rotated through but the daily average was always 250,000; would the death rate change? Would Iraq be more or less safe? No the dangers and risks would be the same. That’s what I’m saying - it should be based on the average number of troops there. The number of troops that rotate through is arbitrary. But, beyond this, the reality is the death rate and risk really come down to how aggressive a strategy is employed. The aggression was toned down in 2008 because it was an election year. Do you think a military strategy should change based on the election cycle in the US? [/quote]
So what you are saying is that if one person gets killed, it should be based on the number of troops that are THERE at THAT TIME?
That makes no sense. The rate does indeed change if you account for the number of troops cycling through.
As for your last question. No, never. However, aggression was toned down prior to 2008.
As for OpTempo. My old unit is back over RIGHT NOW. They are running missions as often as we did in '04. More, in fact. Out of 5000 troops (1000 combat arms) in that Brigade, less than 10 have been killed. They are due to come home in 20 days. At this point, they should be doing “right-seat rides” which are basically area familiarization and not combat missions, but they are not. However, although nobody is dying they are constantly arresting and having to release people. And then arresting them the next week or a month later on a raid.
Three men who died over the summer died, because they released someone. This is Obama’s war now. That didn’t happen when I was there. Do you think we should keep releasing terrorists over and over because we are closing Gitmo and have no place to put them? So they can return to the battlefield and kill?
As for why deaths are down: The reason they aren’t getting killed is because they are battle-hardened and experienced. They are well-trained because they train hard.
[quote=BondGuy]Morean is it possible for me to respect your service to our country, but not hold you up as the be-all end-all expert on terrorism? I believe it is. After-all, not one of George Ws closest advisors served in the military. Well, there was Rummy, and you see where that went.
Still, I do respect much of what you have to say, and you bring up a good point; failure to know your enemy. And your point on it being a different culture, a different way of thinking, also true. Not that stopped Bush Incorporated from trying to impose western democratic values on this different thinking culture. Yet, it is not this culture we speak of. It is an aberration from this culture, a cancer from this culture that is the problem. You know first hand that the average Iraqi is a decent person. At least, I assume that you know that. After-all, many of our countrymen, your comrades, died to free these people from oppression. So, please tell me that was for a good cause? As decent as they are the cancer grows. Why? because of our failure to understand these people. We lose the battle for hearts and minds. That's Afghanistan today. As we lose that battle, the one you can't win with an Army the cancer grows. The hate forments, more terrorist are created. They are taught that their reward waits not in this world but the next. They are as sure of that as our children are of 2 plus 2 equals 4. They fear failure not for the consequense of torture or detainment but for the humiliation of not doing God's will. Cutting off the arms of their children will only make them more determined that we are the evil they were born to destroy. You can't fight a twisted ideology with a gun. There is an army of them awaiting their chance to be the passenger in seat 19A. Failure to understand that fact will get many americans killed. [/quote] So taking a war to them is not the answer in your opinion. What is your answer ? What would you do to protect us ?For the record, total war does work. Ghengis Khan, Alexander. Hell, look at our more recent history: Native Americans were butchered left and right and moved off of their land. Why did they stop fighting us? Anybody remember? It wasn’t because we were nice to them. That came later.
[quote=Moraen]For the record, total war does work. Ghengis Khan, Alexander. Hell, look at our more recent history: Native Americans were butchered left and right and moved off of their land. Why did they stop fighting us? Anybody remember? It wasn’t because we were nice to them. That came later.[/quote]
You are really digging into the past for those references. I mean really, Indians vs. Americans???
Conventional warfare used to work, it does not any more. Guerrilla warfare is too effective today to justify conventional warfare. The strongest army in the world can’t beat an entrenched guerrilla army.
This is how Afghanistan beat Russia
This is how Vietnam beat USA
This is why Israel can barely control the Palestinian region.
Or, if you want to go back, this is how Americans won the Revolution
How the IRA beat the crap out of the British.
Interestingly, in every one of my examples, the losing military used excessive violence to try to control an entrenched population. It just won’t work. People today are too smart and weapons are too easy to acquire. They know they don’t just need to give up.
I also believe this because if my country were occupied, I would never give up no matter how much violence was used. I’m guessing you would give up - this is why you believe this would be effective.
[quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen]For the record, total war does work. Ghengis Khan, Alexander. Hell, look at our more recent history: Native Americans were butchered left and right and moved off of their land. Why did they stop fighting us? Anybody remember? It wasn’t because we were nice to them. That came later.[/quote]You are really digging into the past for those references. I mean really, Indians vs. Americans???Conventional warfare used to work, it does not any more. Guerrilla warfare is too effective today to justify conventional warfare. The strongest army in the world can’t beat an entrenched guerrilla army. This is how Afghanistan beat RussiaThis is how Vietnam beat USAThis is why Israel can barely control the Palestinian region. Or, if you want to go back, this is how Americans won the RevolutionHow the IRA beat the crap out of the British.Interestingly, in every one of my examples, the losing military used excessive violence to try to control an entrenched population. It just won’t work. People today are too smart and weapons are too easy to acquire. They know they don’t just need to give up. I also believe this because if my country were occupied, I would never give up no matter how much violence was used. I’m guessing you would give up - this is why you believe this would be effective. [/quote] Native Americans were butchered AFTER the American Revolution.
In addition, The British Empire did not bring all of their strength to bear, and we Americans like to forget if it were not for the French we would have lost.
Afghanis had help from us.
And the Vietnamese are bad-asses, and had an extremely large army. They were well-trained, and hard-core.
Read: Lies My Teacher Told Me. Professor of American History. His name escapes me. If you are truly middle of the road, you will love the book.
Also, Still just curious. But where does your expansive knowledge of guerilla warfare come from?
[quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen]For the record, total war does work. Ghengis Khan, Alexander. Hell, look at our more recent history: Native Americans were butchered left and right and moved off of their land. Why did they stop fighting us? Anybody remember? It wasn’t because we were nice to them. That came later.[/quote]You are really digging into the past for those references. I mean really, Indians vs. Americans???Conventional warfare used to work, it does not any more. Guerrilla warfare is too effective today to justify conventional warfare. The strongest army in the world can’t beat an entrenched guerrilla army. This is how Afghanistan beat RussiaThis is how Vietnam beat USAThis is why Israel can barely control the Palestinian region. Or, if you want to go back, this is how Americans won the RevolutionHow the IRA beat the crap out of the British.Interestingly, in every one of my examples, the losing military used excessive violence to try to control an entrenched population. It just won’t work. People today are too smart and weapons are too easy to acquire. They know they don’t just need to give up. I also believe this because if my country were occupied, I would never give up no matter how much violence was used. I’m guessing you would give up - this is why you believe this would be effective. [/quote]
Hahaha! You think you couldn’t be made to give up. That is hilarious! Still, I never took you for an ignorant redneck!
You have no clue what true violence is!
You made my New Year!
Thought I would post this link. NOT FoxNews.
Same guy from Yemen linked to both the Ft. Hood guy and Christmas bomber.
Coincidence?:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/31/abdulmutallab.terror.radical.cleric/index.html
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones]
Moraen:For the record, total war does work. Ghengis Khan, Alexander. Hell, look at our more recent history: Native Americans were butchered left and right and moved off of their land. Why did they stop fighting us? Anybody remember? It wasn’t because we were nice to them. That came later.[/quote]You are really digging into the past for those references. I mean really, Indians vs. Americans???Conventional warfare used to work, it does not any more. Guerrilla warfare is too effective today to justify conventional warfare. The strongest army in the world can’t beat an entrenched guerrilla army. This is how Afghanistan beat RussiaThis is how Vietnam beat USAThis is why Israel can barely control the Palestinian region. Or, if you want to go back, this is how Americans won the RevolutionHow the IRA beat the crap out of the British.Interestingly, in every one of my examples, the losing military used excessive violence to try to control an entrenched population. It just won’t work. People today are too smart and weapons are too easy to acquire. They know they don’t just need to give up. I also believe this because if my country were occupied, I would never give up no matter how much violence was used. I’m guessing you would give up - this is why you believe this would be effective.
Hahaha! You think you couldn't be made to give up. That is hilarious! Still, I never took you for an ignorant redneck!
You have no clue what true violence is!
You made my New Year![/quote]
I'm a Terminator.
I’m a Terminator.[/quote]
Sweet!
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag.
This statement is incredibly flawed. Over 800,000 troops rotated through Iraq between 2004-2007.
That’s a little over 1%. [/quote]Let’s say 2,000,000 troops rotated through but the daily average was always 250,000; would the death rate change? Would Iraq be more or less safe? No the dangers and risks would be the same. That’s what I’m saying - it should be based on the average number of troops there. The number of troops that rotate through is arbitrary. But, beyond this, the reality is the death rate and risk really come down to how aggressive a strategy is employed. The aggression was toned down in 2008 because it was an election year. Do you think a military strategy should change based on the election cycle in the US? [/quote]
So what you are saying is that if one person gets killed, it should be based on the number of troops that are THERE at THAT TIME?
That makes no sense. The rate does indeed change if you account for the number of troops cycling through.
As for your last question. No, never. However, aggression was toned down prior to 2008.
As for OpTempo. My old unit is back over RIGHT NOW. They are running missions as often as we did in '04. More, in fact. Out of 5000 troops (1000 combat arms) in that Brigade, less than 10 have been killed. They are due to come home in 20 days. At this point, they should be doing “right-seat rides” which are basically area familiarization and not combat missions, but they are not. However, although nobody is dying they are constantly arresting and having to release people. And then arresting them the next week or a month later on a raid.
Three men who died over the summer died, because they released someone. This is Obama’s war now. That didn’t happen when I was there. Do you think we should keep releasing terrorists over and over because we are closing Gitmo and have no place to put them? So they can return to the battlefield and kill?
As for why deaths are down: The reason they aren’t getting killed is because they are battle-hardened and experienced. They are well-trained because they train hard. [/quote]
So let’s just shorten tours of duty by half.
If you previously went for 12 months, you now go for 6.
If you previously went for 6 months, you now go for 3.
Rotate twice as many soldiers through and now Iraq is now twice as safe!!!
This is what you are saying, right?
Nope. It’s not gonna make it safer. Although fresher troops are usually more cautious. You might be on to something.
But it doesn’t make it any more dangerous if you double them either.
I’m saying the risk is dependent on the average number of troops in Iraq (250,000)
You are saying the risk is dependent on the total number who get rotated through (800,000)
So, now I’m saying, rotate 1,600,000 through (keeping an average of 250,000 on the ground) and it will be twice as safe and you are saying this is wrong also. Now I’m confused.
[quote=Still@jones] I’m saying the risk is dependent on the average number of troops in Iraq (250,000)You are saying the risk is dependent on the total number who get rotated through (800,000)So, now I’m saying, rotate 1,600,000 through (keeping an average of 250,000 on the ground) and it will be twice as safe and you are saying this is wrong also. Now I’m confused.
[/quote]
I’m saying that the safety doesn’t change. What I’m telling you is simply that preparation for war is more risky than war. That’s it. And that holds up to the analysis.
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] I’m saying the risk is dependent on the average number of troops in Iraq (250,000)You are saying the risk is dependent on the total number who get rotated through (800,000)So, now I’m saying, rotate 1,600,000 through (keeping an average of 250,000 on the ground) and it will be twice as safe and you are saying this is wrong also. Now I’m confused.
[/quote]
I’m saying that the safety doesn’t change. What I’m telling you is simply that preparation for war is more risky than war. That’s it. And that holds up to the analysis.[/quote]
I will agree with you on this:
Spending 3.5 years preparing for war is more dangerous than 12 months in a war zone.
Maybe this is the point they were trying to make.
[quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] I’m saying the risk is dependent on the average number of troops in Iraq (250,000)You are saying the risk is dependent on the total number who get rotated through (800,000)So, now I’m saying, rotate 1,600,000 through (keeping an average of 250,000 on the ground) and it will be twice as safe and you are saying this is wrong also. Now I’m confused.
[/quote]
I’m saying that the safety doesn’t change. What I’m telling you is simply that preparation for war is more risky than war. That’s it. And that holds up to the analysis.[/quote]I will agree with you on this:Spending 3.5 years preparing for war is more dangerous than 12 months in a war zone. Maybe this is the point they were trying to make. [/quote]
No. One year of training is more dangerous than one year in a war zone. Haven’t you been listening?
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] I’m saying the risk is dependent on the average number of troops in Iraq (250,000)You are saying the risk is dependent on the total number who get rotated through (800,000)So, now I’m saying, rotate 1,600,000 through (keeping an average of 250,000 on the ground) and it will be twice as safe and you are saying this is wrong also. Now I’m confused.
[/quote]
I’m saying that the safety doesn’t change. What I’m telling you is simply that preparation for war is more risky than war. That’s it. And that holds up to the analysis.[/quote]I will agree with you on this:Spending 3.5 years preparing for war is more dangerous than 12 months in a war zone. Maybe this is the point they were trying to make. [/quote]
No. One year of training is more dangerous than one year in a war zone. Haven’t you been listening?[/quote]
I’m listening…I’m just saying the facts you’ve provided do not support this.
Maybe this can’t be resolved on this forum.
Here you go:
From Steven Levitt:
From 2002 to 2008, the United States was fighting bloody wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; among active military personnel, there were an average 1,643 fatalities per year. But over the same stretch of time in the early 1980’s, with the United States fighting no major wars, there were more than 2,100 military deaths per year. How can this possibly be?
For one, the military used to be much larger: 2.1 million on active duty in 1988 versus 1.4 million in 2008. But even the rate of death in 2008 was lower than in certain peacetime years. Some of this improvement is likely due to better medical care. But a surprising fact is that the accidental death rate for soliders in the early 1980’s was higher than the death rate by hostile fire for every year the United States has been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems that practicing to fight a war can be just about as dangerous as really fighting one.
And, to further put things in perspective, think about this: since 1982, some 42,000 active U.S. military personnel have been killed - roughly the same number of Americans who die in traffic accidents in a single year.
Levitt is a professor of Economics at Chicago University and won the John Bates Clark medal. The research for THIS particular study came from Dr. Ian Ayres.
Unfortunately, my subscription does not allow me to provide links. However, you can look up the research on your own. I could also input the data into JMP and show you, but I’m not exactly sure how to post that. You could, of course do the calculations on your own.
In the eighties, we didn’t fight too many wars. As for the eight years preceding Bush’s terms, there was an RIF and drawdown in training. Something else that would add to less deaths.
JMP? I’ve been running it in excel. (and probably spending more time than I should)
I really don’t think we will resolve this on this forum. I understand the point Mr. Levitt is making, but I do not agree with the “safer at war” argument.
I’m just working off of Page 8 of the congressional research service bulletin you posted and estimates of the number of troops in Iraq and every way I look at it, a tour in Iraq greatly increases the chances of a soldier dying.
Great! Except the opposite is true. The mindset of people who live in cities puts them in a better position to succeed in the new global economy. People move to big cities when they want to succeed. People who live in small town America are better equiped to deal with a 1930's depression. (which Bush tried to create - and Obama saved us from.) Cities define the future!I was in the country. It is interesting that people in the cities often don’t “get it” when it comes to having to do what is necessary. People that work hard understand sacrifice. People in cities do not, for the most part.
Look at the pundits, they live in cities and don’t know sh!t.
We’ll see. I see young people wanting less dependence on big government and big business. If I was young, I’d take a farm with a fishing pond and a big screen over the city any day.
Great! Except the opposite is true. The mindset of people who live in cities puts them in a better position to succeed in the new global economy. People move to big cities when they want to succeed. People who live in small town America are better equiped to deal with a 1930's depression. (which Bush tried to create - and Obama saved us from.) Cities define the future! [/quote][quote=Moraen]I was in the country. It is interesting that people in the cities often don’t “get it” when it comes to having to do what is necessary. People that work hard understand sacrifice. People in cities do not, for the most part.
Look at the pundits, they live in cities and don’t know sh!t.
Ridiculous. I live in a small town. This town has the highest number of Ph.D's per capita in the United States.
The market may be larger in big cities, but bigger cities also have a higher poverty rate than small towns.
Oh, so city people aren't more intelligent than country people? Let's send BM to work on a farm for a year. Chinese Cultural Revolution style.
Great! Except the opposite is true. The mindset of people who live in cities puts them in a better position to succeed in the new global economy. People move to big cities when they want to succeed.[quote=Moraen]I was in the country. It is interesting that people in the cities often don’t “get it” when it comes to having to do what is necessary. People that work hard understand sacrifice. People in cities do not, for the most part.Look at the pundits, they live in cities and don’t know sh!t.
People who live in small town America are better equiped to deal with a 1930’s depression. (which Bush tried to create - and Obama saved us from.)
Cities define the future!
[/quote]
Let me get this straight. Bush TRIED to create a 1930’s depression? Even though the entire catalyst of the meltdown was a product of the Clinton era? Bush has some blame to be sure. But both Bush and Obama were all about bailing people out. Obama is not blameless either. Keep in mind, he was in the Senate during this meltdown.
No politician has ever saved the American people (maybe a few veterans) from anything. There are no heroes among politicians. The American people have always saved themselves. Innovation, driven by a free market, will always win where politics fail.
Obama didn’t save anything. Neither did Congress.
I’ve read your free market rant. You don’t even like engineers - the backbone of innovation.
If you were real free-market, you would support increasing the number of immigrants allowed into the US so Americans can compete in a real free market for wages and productivity. You would also think that it is unfair that states such as California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, etc. have to support welfare states in the midwest by sending almost 25% of their fedreal tax revenue to "red" states. I do not believe we should do either - but I don't claim the crap that you claim.That’s the problem with you big government, high tax people (and yes, Bush was a big government guy, something I am against). You think that just because something IS done means it HAS to be done.
I never said I didn’t like engineers. I posted a link to an article that shows that there are twice as many terrorists that are engineers than the next highest field: Islamic studies.
I also posed it as a question for debate.
If government would stay out of people’s lives, with exception of protection and building roads, the country would be a lot more successful. Innovation drives success. That includes engineers.
Actually, you should be the one who doesn’t like engineers.
Engineers are seven times more likely to be right-wing and fundamentally religious than ANY other profession. Think about that.
[quote=Billy Mays]I’ve read your free market rant. You don’t even like engineers - the backbone of innovation.
If you were real free-market, you would support increasing the number of immigrants allowed into the US so Americans can compete in a real free market for wages and productivity. You would also think that it is unfair that states such as California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, etc. have to support welfare states in the midwest by sending almost 25% of their fedreal tax revenue to "blue" states. I do not believe we should do either - but I don't claim the crap that you claim. [/quote]Do you mean farm subsidies? Well, they don't have to eat. Farmers could always charge higher prices. Who is going to grow and raise the food?
I don't think we should subsidize farms. We should let them charge whatever they want to.
Where else are the people in the cities gonna get their food?
Milyunair - No one wants to live on a farm anymore - except the amish. It’s a crap life. If we had a cultural revolution here, I would kill myself.
Per capita PhD is usually because there is a university in your town. It is meaningless. Small towns are full of people who do not aspire to anything. Bush2 tried to duplicate Reagan. Borrow out the wazoo and create a fake housing boom - this creates a false sense of prosperity that will carry you through most of your 8 year term. Then, hopefully, the whole thing will implode after you leave office leaving the disaster on the hands of the next president. It worked for Reagan. But it imploded too soon for Bush2 and now his decisions look like crap. Reagan and Bush2 both set out to build a house of cards that made them look good and made the next guy look like crap. Worked for Reagan, failure for Bush2. I thought engineers in America were most likely to be indian or chinese. Food subsidies are pennies complared to the final cost of food. Raw materials are pennies compared to distribution, marketing, manufacturing and retail. 25% of my federal tax money goes to under-performing "welfare" red states. The federal government should force these states to pay their own bills. If they can't, we can loan them the money (they could never repay) and turn them into our bitch; like latin america. I wonder if Quyale ever learned how to speak latin.25% of my federal tax money goes to under-performing “welfare” red states.
It was recently reported in my state that within a few years, about 25% of our(high) property and income taxes will be going to fund the PERS ( Public Employee Retirement System) pension. If you own a farm (even if you have another job) - you can write off stuff and end up paying near zero taxes, state or federal. And enjoy nature. Whatever.[quote=Billy Mays]Milyunair - No one wants to live on a farm anymore - except the amish. It’s a crap life. If we had a cultural revolution here, I would kill myself.
Per capita PhD is usually because there is a university in your town. It is meaningless. Small towns are full of people who do not aspire to anything. Bush2 tried to duplicate Reagan. Borrow out the wazoo and create a fake housing boom - this creates a false sense of prosperity that will carry you through most of your 8 year term. Then, hopefully, the whole thing will implode after you leave office leaving the disaster on the hands of the next president. It worked for Reagan. But it imploded too soon for Bush2 and now his decisions look like crap. Reagan and Bush2 both set out to build a house of cards that made them look good and made the next guy look like crap. Worked for Reagan, failure for Bush2. I thought engineers in America were most likely to be indian or chinese. Food subsidies are pennies complared to the final cost of food. Raw materials are pennies compared to distribution, marketing, manufacturing and retail. 25% of my federal tax money goes to under-performing "welfare" red states. The federal government should force these states to pay their own bills. If they can't, we can loan them the money (they could never repay) and turn them into our bitch; like latin america. I wonder if Quyale ever learned how to speak latin. [/quote]BMays - where is your link for the 25% of federal tax money going to fund under-performing states? CBO?
You think that's bad, like 40% of NY state taxes paid in NYC go to support the "welfare" of our brothers in rural upstate NY.
My information comes from : http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html[quote=Billy Mays]
You think that’s bad, like 40% of NY state taxes paid in NYC go to support the “welfare” of our brothers in rural upstate NY.
My information comes from : http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html[/quote]Ah, I see. Your law professor has quite the agenda. If you dig into the research that he provides, and look at different years (2005 being the most recent), New Mexico is number 1. What is New Mexico? A blue state perhaps?
D.C. which is purely metropolitan has $5.55 tax dollars received per tax paid.
Also, look at the data from 1981 - 2005. California for example, has been consistently low in federal money received vs. paid.
There is no statistically significant variability in rank.
But thanks for the link! The professors blog is highly prejudicial towards the left. If you actually look at the link he provides to the data, and dig deeper, you can see he's full of sh!t.
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/lounge/terror-over-detroit