Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic? - Page 4 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-28-2005, 10:24 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

This discussion is being limited by the basic belief that using nukes is incomprehensible. I think allowing our survival to be jeopardized is incomprehensible, and I think our present military structure and strategies are inadequate to effectively protect us from terrorism. We have become pussified by this belief that we are almighty and have these high tech weapons that can fly into the windows of the bad guys. It is a strategic failure to base our defense on million dollar weapons that kill the enemy one bad guy at a time. We cannot afford to win a war that way.

First, as I have stated before, and KV reiterated above, war has to be an all out thing or nothing. There can be no half way events. War is a response to an undeniable threat. Our response has to be overwhelmingly brutal, or we don't do it. For all but the most severe cases we should find another way to respond. When we respond though, we should respond to win. NO elective wars for control of resources or any other political initiatives.

Take a good look at our capabilities. We absolutely suck at this hand to hand stuff in other people's countries. We may need to develop a military skill set that offers more than one response but that is a generation of Americans off in the future. At the present time we are only better than anyone else at relatively little that comes in handy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, or anywhere else. At the present we need to stop this on the job training of soldiers being sent to places where no one speaks the language, no one making on the spot decisions is expert in the culture and knows how to read the "civilian" population, and the military strategists defining the skill sets of soldiers and the kinds of equipment they will be given sit in some cozy stateside facility - like the Pentagon.

Look at the people we are fighting. They capture women and non-military personnel, chop their heads off and video tape it then send it to an outlet like Al-Jezeera. They understand the use of technology in this situation better than we do. Each one of those $350 Japanese Handycams gets multiple uses, and the tapes cost less than $10 each.

A nuke would seriously deter these guys. Sorry if the people living next to them fry too, but they are complicit. The Taliban was a government, and Al-Qaeda operated freely and in the open with the cooperation of the Taliban. Maybe herding the shitbirds into the Tora-Bora area would have been better, as it is less populated, if a nuke was to be used. But, we were justified, we have nukes and we could have done it. And it would have been more effective than what we did. Perhaps not as effective as some other activity we might dream up, but cannot implement today, much less at the time. Those better ideas may be a reality if we work really hard at implementing them for a generation or two. In the mean time, we need to protect ourselves.

I would much rather America be around to explain for hundreds of generations why we used nukes than to be eroded into oblivion because we went broke trying to kill a million flies with high tech, anti-fly defense systems instead of using those nukes. As for imposing our military on the rest of the world, well, if you don't control the bad guys in your country and let them kill thousands of Americans at a time, I think you deserve what you get. If war is really horrible, and not romanticized with science fiction gadgets that we can neither afford to develop or afford to use when we get them developed, we will have very few of them. Maybe none. If we go down the path we are on now, we will be perpetually at war. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-28-2005, 11:34 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
JimSmith - 3/28/2005 9:24 PM
A nuke would seriously deter these guys. Sorry if the people living next to them fry too, but they are complicit. The Taliban was a government, and Al-Qaeda operated freely and in the open with the cooperation of the Taliban. Maybe herding the shitbirds into the Tora-Bora area would have been better, as it is less populated, if a nuke was to be used. But, we were justified, we have nukes and we could have done it. And it would have been more effective than what we did.

Jim
Curiously, you just made Ward Churchill's argument here. Apparently, anyone in the general vicinity of our political enemy-dujour gets to suffer the consequences of mere proximity--shall we just call this the Doctrine of Proximity then? Logically, each of us here in the US would fall under the same level of complicity, rendering the Geneva Convention rules moot, making us all a bunch of complicit "Eichmanns" (e.g. active military targets)--this is a position strikingly similar to our "terrorist" friends, which allows us to wallow in the same morally bankrupt muck. Once we've sunk to that level, hell, anything goes, tactical nooks? Tactical schmactical--India pre-emptively lobs a few tactical nooks at the Pakistanis, China sends a few at Taiwan, Russia sends a few toward Japan to fend off their encroachment into the Kuriles...hell, it's a nookular winter wonderland for all!

Jim, a chasm of understanding obviously exists between us regarding the use of nookular/radioactive armaments. I simply cannot accept any terrestrial scenario whereby nooks should/could be used except for the much feared doomsday version that you and I learned to live with during the Cold War. Nothing personal, but I certainly hope your worldview doesn't gain much traction in DC, or I fear we'll be headed for doomsday anyway.
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #33 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-29-2005, 04:13 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
vanir's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: 1989 W201.029/M103 3.0
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Garage
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

It's not public weight which causes the reluctance of military sanctioning with tactical weapons. It's the military leaders and accredited scientific advisors, who've been studying them for 50 years deciding there has yet to be an appropriate situation to use these very specialized explosives.

Nukes at any scale are tremendously dangerous to our planetary ecosphere for one...

Anyone who thinks they're simply "bigger and better weapons, nut nobody likes the unfair advantage" I suggest should read up a little about them. And the NASA studies which watched our planet's magnetic fields preturb horrifically with each atmospheric testing. The repeated orbits of ionized radioactive materiel in the mesosphere. The huge release of gamma radiation and microwaves which normally do not penetrate into the atmosphere and thus our planet is ecologically poorly adapted to withstanding in any significant presence.

Nukes are the classic nightmare of bad 50's sci-fi. The proverbial "Alien materiels from Outer Space" because that's the only place you encounter the environments generated by nuclear explosions naturally.
Life can't exist with them. Life *only* appeared on Earth because it kept those environments away from its surface.

driving a fast car should feel like falling off a building.
vanir is offline  
post #34 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-29-2005, 07:20 AM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: 1984 300SD 1986 300SDL 1989 300SE 1998 740iL
Location: NY
Posts: 1,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
Zeitgeist - 3/29/2005 1:34 AM

Quote:
JimSmith - 3/28/2005 9:24 PM
A nuke would seriously deter these guys. Sorry if the people living next to them fry too, but they are complicit. The Taliban was a government, and Al-Qaeda operated freely and in the open with the cooperation of the Taliban. Maybe herding the shitbirds into the Tora-Bora area would have been better, as it is less populated, if a nuke was to be used. But, we were justified, we have nukes and we could have done it. And it would have been more effective than what we did.

Jim


Jim, a chasm of understanding obviously exists between us regarding the use of nookular/radioactive armaments. I simply cannot accept any terrestrial scenario whereby nooks should/could be used except for the much feared doomsday version that you and I learned to live with during the Cold War. Nothing personal, but I certainly hope your worldview doesn't gain much traction in DC, or I fear we'll be headed for doomsday anyway.
I agree with Z completely on this. The United States has a large number of "conventional" weapons that can do some serious damage to a large area; an area that will be significantly bigger than any concentration of terrorists that you could ever hope for.

Multiple uses of these conventional weapons will provide the "overwhelming force" that you seek without any lasting environmental damage. Furthermore, the loss to the civilian popluation, while significant, will be a fraction of the loss that would occur with nuclear weapons.

Finally, with two noted exceptions, once you go nuclear, you cannot go back. All other parties holding nuclear weapons will seriously consider their use whenever a conflict exists that they want to dominate.

You are playing with the doomsday scenario in a very serious manner, and, frankly, I'm a bit surprised at your opinion on this. I think, unfortunately, you might be in the camp with BHD (VD). If you are in that camp, you had better rethink your position.

Brian Carlton
1984 300 SD
1986 300 SDL
1987 300 SDL
Brian Carlton is offline  
post #35 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-29-2005, 09:01 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

I am comforted that this is an Internet forum, and not real life. As much as I admire Jim and Kirk for their views on many things, I cannot abide their positions on the use of nuclear weapons to fight terrorism. I agree wholeheartedly with Zeitgeist and Brian on the matter.

The United States needs to rethink the things it does in the world that result in a terrorist mentality. I am not saying that we are solely responsible for the emergence of terrorist groups, but by our actions we have helped create an atmosphere in which they thrive.

Meanwhile, we should be vigilant and spearhead an international police action against terrorist cells wherever they may gather. To do this, of course, we must mend the many fractures among our allied nations, caused by the hair-trigger mentality promoted by the likes of Paul Wolfowicz. But as bad as he is, even Wolfowicz is not advocating nukes--at least, not yet.

Joe B.
Joe Bauers is offline  
post #36 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-29-2005, 09:37 AM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
79-300SD's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1979 300SD, 1983 300D Mercedes
Location: Hells Half Acre (Great Falls, Virginia)
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 79-300SD
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

I say we nuke everyone in the middle east except for Isreal..............

There would be far less problems with 90% of the Muslim troublemakers done away with.

----------------------------------------

Speed is a question of money. How fast do you want to go?

----------------------------------------
Proud Owner of a

1979 W116 300SD

1983 W123 300D
----------------------------------------

Come join us at http://schumanautomotive.com/forums
79-300SD is offline  
post #37 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-29-2005, 10:05 AM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: 1984 300SD 1986 300SDL 1989 300SE 1998 740iL
Location: NY
Posts: 1,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
79-300SD - 3/29/2005 11:37 AM

I say we nuke everyone in the middle east except for Isreal..............

There would be far less problems with 90% of the Muslim troublemakers done away with.
Why am I not surprised?[:(]

If you "nuke everyone in the middle east" what do you think will be left of Israel??

Do you have any understanding of how powerful this weapon is and what its repurcussions are?

You speak like a total moron sometimes, despite your excellent wrenching capabilities.

Brian Carlton
1984 300 SD
1986 300 SDL
1987 300 SDL
Brian Carlton is offline  
post #38 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-29-2005, 05:40 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
Joe Bauers - 3/29/2005 11:01 AM

I am comforted that this is an Internet forum, and not real life. As much as I admire Jim and Kirk for their views on many things, I cannot abide their positions on the use of nuclear weapons to fight terrorism. I agree wholeheartedly with Zeitgeist and Brian on the matter.

The United States needs to rethink the things it does in the world that result in a terrorist mentality. I am not saying that we are solely responsible for the emergence of terrorist groups, but by our actions we have helped create an atmosphere in which they thrive.

Meanwhile, we should be vigilant and spearhead an international police action against terrorist cells wherever they may gather. To do this, of course, we must mend the many fractures among our allied nations, caused by the hair-trigger mentality promoted by the likes of Paul Wolfowicz. But as bad as he is, even Wolfowicz is not advocating nukes--at least, not yet.

Joe B.
I'm with you on this one.
Botnst is offline  
post #39 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-29-2005, 08:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
Botnst - 3/29/2005 7:40 PM

Quote:
Joe Bauers - 3/29/2005 11:01 AM

I am comforted that this is an Internet forum, and not real life. As much as I admire Jim and Kirk for their views on many things, I cannot abide their positions on the use of nuclear weapons to fight terrorism. I agree wholeheartedly with Zeitgeist and Brian on the matter.

The United States needs to rethink the things it does in the world that result in a terrorist mentality. I am not saying that we are solely responsible for the emergence of terrorist groups, but by our actions we have helped create an atmosphere in which they thrive.

Meanwhile, we should be vigilant and spearhead an international police action against terrorist cells wherever they may gather. To do this, of course, we must mend the many fractures among our allied nations, caused by the hair-trigger mentality promoted by the likes of Paul Wolfowicz. But as bad as he is, even Wolfowicz is not advocating nukes--at least, not yet.

Joe B.
I'm with you on this one.
Would it be insensitive of me to say "ditto"?[:D]

aborted Shop Forum member

azimuth is offline  
post #40 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-29-2005, 08:12 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

...wait, what side am I on, again?
Zeitgeist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome