|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Sound Off! Sound Off on William Lind A Question for Would-Be Presidents|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,155339,00.html
In 1914, America was a republic with a small federal government, a self-reliant citizenry, growing industry, an expanding middle class, an uplifting culture and exemplary morals. By 1990 and the end of that long war, we had become a tawdry and increasingly resented world empire with a vast, endlessly intrusive federal government, a population of willingly manipulated consumers, shrinking industry, a vanishing middle class, a debauched culture and morals that would shame a self-respecting stoat. ------------------------------ Perhaps. A 1917 America responded to a threat against the survival of our nation, as it did in 1941 with far higher resolve than a 21st Century America is willing to respond to an enemy who has declared this war to be the end of the Western age. Unlike the world wars, the War on Terror is being fought by a small "willing" minority while the rest of the country has their noses in PCS's, X-Boxes, lives of immorality (i.e. the new morality) and an unwillingness to pursue and destroy the enemy while that same majority accuses eachother of a 9-11 conspiracy. Mr. Lind may disagree, but what this country needs most is not a mysterious dark horse to win the presidency (though it certainly wouldn't hurt); this country needs a citizenary that can distinguish absolute right from absolute wrong, and a willingness to engage the enemy as a country with the resolve to win. Rome was probably at its best when it was a strong republic about to embark on being an empire; that was America in the early decades of the 20th Century. There is no going back to the good old days, but we can revive the morals and resolve of those days. |
||
|
Member |
Oh no, not again this gentleman Lind again
 His mind is stuck somewhere in the 19th century, while he pretends to have a clue about now or the future. Wonder what drives mil.com to hire such folks and additional pay them money for such drivel. Nanjing:  |
|||
|
|
New Member |
|
|||
|
Member |
The "heathen juice", unfortunately, is oil. When we get really serious R&D on Hydrogen Fuel Cell technolgy and start building nuclear power plants and hydro-electric generating stations: the ME wars will diminish as fast as their oil revenues. |
|||
|
Member |
while i think lind is pretty on the money, i can also see the points of the other comments too, especially the oil "heathen juice". i think that if the arab countries had to WORK for a living, then they'd have a lot less time for jihad and all that b*ll*hit!
   |
|||
|
New Member |
Here's a thought... we're worried about state sponsored terrorism now.... I wonder how the Middle East would react if/when we come up with an alternative fuel source that makes us independent of Middle East sources? I don't think they would react favorably and pat us on the back. I'd think that would increase our chances of attacks at home to sabotage our new source and trying to keep us reliant on theirs. I'm not trying to go way off on a conspiracy rant, but it may be that Saudi Arabia and such countries ARE sponsoring R&D for alternative fuels and I just haven't heard of it. Man, mil.com sure gets some weirdos for theit opinion pieces, don't they?  |
|||
|
|
Member |
Congratulations on your promotion and completion of MOS training Devil Dog 2847. You are correct in your deduction that we will be attacked at home and abroad, regardless of whether or not alternative fuel sources are created or discovered. The previous posters believe that America should curl up behind closed borders and adopt a siege mentality. What weaker target is there than an isolationist state that no longer participates in the world market, projects sea power to protect lines of communication, participates in diplomacy with our allies and potential allies alike. This is truly a struggle for survival.
Thank you for your fine service. My 0311 partner who is with me now told me to tell you, Semper Fi, Marine. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nanjing, |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Pray tell, how will that be done, and will it be easier than electing a "dark horse" candidate? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
<<So how about it, all you would-be Presidents: what do you intend to do to keep America out of an inevitably disastrous long war? If you cannot answer that question, you shouldn't be running for dogcatcher of Dogpatch.>>
Is this a trick question? (I wonder who Al Capp would want elected?) How about this: cease any and all "force projection" efforts around the world, bring the troops home, give 'em some much-needed R&R, and then re-structure the entire system (from the top down with a stated goal from R&D to boots on the ground) of _defense_, pure and simple -- defense of this country's borders and people. The cost is lower, the logistics are simpler, and the effort is ideologically pure as it can be. |
|||
|
|
Member |
JTaylor 48, Certainly, having served in the Navy, you know that a defense strategy is a loser's strategy. America gains its strength from a powerful free market economy which in turn makes a strong comprehensive military possible. It is in the strategy of the Jihadists to demoralize the will of the average American and cause him to sue for peace at any price. Part of that strategy is to remove the United States as an international participant on the global map. We need bases and logistics centers around the world, including Iraq and Afghanastan to counter the Jihadist movement. We also need to cultivate alliances with willing, and sometimes reluctant partners; that is the nature of this war. The Jihadists expect this struggle to last decades. We need to stop looking for the easy way out; we had better be as prepared and committed to victory over our enemy as they are toward us. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nanjing, |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Lind refers at some length to my article "America takes another step towards the “Long War”. To see the origial, go to:
America takes another step towards the "Long War" It is published at Defense and the National Interest (DNI), an online journal about geo-political and military issues. Here is an archive of my articles back to September 2003: Fabius Maximus archives |
|||
|
Member |
The original Fabius Maximus sounds like a good study for all of us. I'm assuming the above contributor is not a reincarnation of same.
 Regardless, thanks for the link. It's interesting that the author, Lind, who has been accused in previous threads to be "leftist" is now accused of living in the 19th Century. [ Hallo, Nike] As to America resuming a "defensive" philosophy in use of the Military, I believe the tried and true American way has been to be slow to war, but all-out to win if provoked into one. The neoconservative doctrine of "preemption" has shown itself to be antithetical to this, IMHO. Lind has outlined a feasible plan of action. "Warm spit" seems a little harsh, but at least we know where Lind stands. |
|||
|
Member |
I have a question that seems more pertinet to those how have studied history enough to see the storm clouds rolling in, when did America lose the will to defend itself? It seemed to go pretty fast after WWII.
Why is it so many are so willing to fight their own rather than those who threatin our lives? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Good question, somethingtobragabout. Too bad more people are not as inquisitive and historically oriented as you. The answer is probably because we were a different country during World War II, with values that mattered when faced with an enemy bent on our total destruction. The danger from the Jihadists is no different than the danger posed by Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan; only the technique of warfare and politics used against us to achieve the same ends. Today, the near total polarity among Americans is frieghtening; it is almost as if we live in two or three countries with different sets of values within a common border. We had better be as united and willing to commit to victory in a long struggle as our enemy is. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
"near total polarity among Americans" You have K.V.Rove to thank for that although he produced some short term gains for the repubs by putting together a coalition of the lunatic right, genuine patriotic Americans and the evangelicals by drumming up hate for liberals ( a technique Hitler used in the 30s) it is coming back to bite the nation in the back side. We are so divided now it gives hope to the bad guys. We need some one who will unite us some one who is not a BSer . I say give JIM WEB a try. I think that 70% of Americans have got their eyes open now and will not fall for that crap in 08 |
|||
|
|
Member |
Unfortuneatly I have to disagree, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 both have graphically shown that isolationism will not work. Not to mention the embassy bombings through out the middle and late 90's, the USS Cole, all of these were the products of isolationism. Granted had there been a more proactive intelligence stance we might have lessened the damage but we would not have stopped all of these. In what sport has resting on your laurels ever worked? With out a strong offense, all the defense in the world will not let you win. And in this case, the stakes are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I say thats worth killing and being killed for. The unfortunate fact is that there are psycho's and those willing to manipulate them for their own amusment. As for the comment about this all being about oil, if the United States is hungry for controlling oil, why does OPEC still have us by the short hairs? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Dear oh Dear. Minor points first. STRATEGY not stragety.
The US was under no threat in WWI, and if you think so then you are an idiot, pure and simple. The German and Austro Hungarian Empires were only interested in continental European gains, they were not even interested in colonies particularly much and sought to avoid war with Great Britain. There was no, absolutely no, threat against America or American interests form Germany in WWI. W. Wilson simply used it as an excuse to increase government power and project his nonsensical liberal views onto the poor, unsuspecting world. As to why America is so divided at the moment, the simple reason is that the moral layer of the GWOT has been lost. Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, it was the greatest propaganda victory for extremist in modern history, has created a state of anarchy ideal for breeding terrorists and largely destroyed the goodwill of the world that was gained after 911 and during the Just and Righteous War in Afhganistan. Patriotic chest thumping will do nothing to reverse this problems, what is needed is rational debate and working plans seperated from idealogy. Whether you agree with Lind or not, he is providing these things. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yet more blind following and vomiting up of less than half truths.
Al Queda in Iraq didn't set itself up overnight. Plus we need a presence in the middle east from which to project force. And if we need that why not take another evil at the same time. Terrorists do not recognize the borders unless they wish to. Combine all that and its a damn good reason to go. Besides the advanced nuclear program and fine tuned chemical and biological programs that is. As for US intervention in WWI, seems a stupid point for some one who is pretty well siding with those that screamed bloody murder when the President was willing "to go it alone". If a friend that had helped you out is getting their *** kicked, you have to help else they might not help when you need it. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Sound Off! Sound Off on William Lind A Question for Would-Be Presidents
