|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164393_2,00.html
A nice rant. It raises an issue that I hadn't thought of before...Under what legislation is the President authorized to strafe and bomb Somalia? |
||
|
|
New Member |
Funny, in the Coast Guard it was always about doing more with less and sometimes everything with nothing. In my experience the latest whiz-bang technology sold to the military has always short changed those on the deckplates or in the field.
Funnier, now as a police officer, the latest whiz-bang technology short changes officers on the street and tactical operators at the doors. But administrators believe that technology is more important than quality duty and tactical gear that can increase survivability on the street. They must all attend the same "management" schools. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Normally I think this guy is a angry kook who needs to wear more aluminum foil, but this column brought up some good points and used some humor for once.
|
|||
|
Experienced Member |
I mainly agree with the author. As to your point, I disagree with a lot of how the GWOT has been handled but one thing is certain; insurgencies can only thrive if there is access to save havens. As terrorists are not tied to countries and governments and can move freely across borders, we have to be able to attack them wherever they find refuge. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Outstanding op-ed and very funny too!
Instead of employing Virginia class nuclear subs, maybe our military Keystone Cop geniuses should consider resurrecting the C.S.A. ironclad Virginia (Yankees called it the Merrimac) to pursue and destroy them there evil terrorists. |
|||
|
Member |
 Legislation? We don't need no stinkin' legislation! [Unitary Executive] |
|||
|
Member |
Naval Power is about Projection...not about killing terrorists...
The author seems to forget about China and Russia building up their arsenals... |
|||
|
|
Quiet Professional BTDT  |
The problem with the exercise comes in roll-reversal - How would the United States react if a 3rd Party violated our airspace/borders/sovereignty in the course of pursuing and/or attacking any threat (real or perceived) across Canadian or Mexican Borders? Well, the response would be immediate of course. We would say that this 3rd Party had committed an act of war and should have contacted our government if they thought some evil-doer was using our border region as a safe haven and we would take immediate relatiatory action. Right? So, how should Somalia react? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This message has been edited. Last edited by: SinePariDonster, |
|||
|
|
New Member |
not this idiot again....let me rephrase that opening line for him...one day americans will look back and see how much safer we are and how we helped a country get on its feet and prove that we are still the best country in the world....there ya go you jackass, you dont know dick about stragety
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
you guys crack me up....we are the USA we are the biggest power in the world, we can do what we want if it involves the safety our americans....i bet if you were in another country you'd be begging to come to the US to live and then those questions would never come out of your mouth...be happy with what you have and stop crying.....
|
|||
|
|
Quiet Professional BTDT |
Perhaps you would care enlighten us from your own extensive experience in strategy and tactics as a combat veteran. No, not the video game...the real world. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
You're right.. and when you're right, you're right and you are ABSOLUTELY correct on that... I'll hit the coast with a pie plate binos and a Springfield and await the arrival of the trireme-class SS Somali Peesoshit which I'm sure is rowing this way even as I type. Hope they don't send submarines, I hear they just upgraded their whole fleet with new screen doors... |
|||
|
|
Quiet Professional BTDT |
ho ho ho  love your humor but at least you understand the point.  Might FOR RIGHT not Might MAKES RIGHT |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
That is a good question that should always be asked. Eventually it all comes down to good old fashioned real-politik. At some point we just have to say f-off to Somalia and any other nation that is too week to damage us in any way when we go in to take out terrorists. I imagine that some nations actually remain silent on this issue when we go in. |
|||
|
* |
Would be a nice gesture to the Constitution to follow it's directives. |
|||
|
|
suspended 90 days as of 5/19/09 |
And your point? Is this some excuse for blowing down mud huts in Waziristan? If new subs are needed to face down some new Russian threat, it doesn't make much sense to be wasting resources designed to combat Soviet naval assets, on targets derived through often specious 'intel' in south Asia. This is more a case of 'use it, and get a (unpdated, more expensive) replacement'. |
|||
|
|
suspended 90 days as of 5/19/09 |
Best wishes for a deep tan on your next Keep the crap up and the only place in the world that may be 'safe for Americans' will be America, maybe. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I guess the same legislation that took us into an ill-advised war in Iraq. If he had competent people and a plan in place after we reached B-dad, it may have turned out different. Maybe they should have listened to Gen. Shinseki, maybe they should have NEVER hired Paul Bremer. Wat a mess. Now its crunch time over revenue sharing and power sharing. Maliki is in bed with Iran, if the US does not help the Sunni's get thier fair share, we are back where we started, twice as worse coz the civil war we headed off for months, will jump off this time. The Sunni's will know they will not get a fair deal from that pig Maliki. Why do we back this guy?
|
|||
|
Member |
If I am not mistaken there are still some UN resolutions governing the use of force in Somalia from back in the President Clinton days. As far as the article goes I am not really sure what the hell he said --other than he has an axe to grind.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
In general, it is a mistake to use the military option to go after terrorists (unless it's a Bin Laden) because it simply elevates the 'face' of the terrorists. For the long run, the better option is to treat them as common criminals, and use the military in a supporting role when that much firepower is warrented. Otherwise we're killing off fleas with sledgehammers, and taking a lot of innocents with them (which only fuels the recruiting for AQ, etc).
The current administration however isn't about discretion - its about being as overt as is possible - which has caused the US far more problems than it has solved. This strategy is ultimately self-defeating as was confirmed by the NIE. Pity. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
