Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which of the bolded countries do you think we should send our troops to? In what capacity? Egypt could collapse at any time. Jordan seems to be keeping a lid on stuff, for now. Pakistan, a tinderbox. Iraq seems easier than 2 out of 3.
where do you get the idea that I suggest that we should "send our troops" to any of those countries? I suggested that the leaders of those countries would have an easier time of being tougher on Islamic extremists and working much more closely with America in joint intelligence and other operations against Islamic extremism if we were not in Iraq inflaming the passions of THEIR citizenry against America.
Point taken and sorry for misunderstanding. So, is that a reason NOT to unleash our military? Because it makes it more difficult for our allies or hope to be be allies?
Do you really think that will work? If so, which of the democratic contenders is most likely to do this? I know Bush won't. I doubt you would think any GOP contender would, so whom?no...I have absolutely no problem "unleashing" our military when doing so provides the optimal outcome. I, for one, would love for us to be much more aggressive along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.... but, as I said, our involvment in Iraq makes that even more problematic for Musharref than it would otherwise be.
I, for one, am not at all convinced that conventional military force - brigades of ground troops occupying territory with the incumbent supply chain and support groups encamped along with them - provides the optimal outcome in ANY arab/Islamic country now. I think our enemy is simply too mobile, too adaptive and too invisible to deal with using such conventional military methods.
I think special ops combined with a massive HUMINT effort, major efforts at freezing financial assets, getting help from the aforementioned arab leaders (provided out of their own enlightened self-interest), combined with some real long term efforts at reducing the socio-economic inequities that spawn extremism in the Islamic world would yield much more valuable results.
no...I have absolutely no problem "unleashing" our military when doing so provides the optimal outcome. I, for one, would love for us to be much more aggressive along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.... but, as I said, our involvment in Iraq makes that even more problematic for Musharref than it would otherwise be.
I, for one, am not at all convinced that conventional military force - brigades of ground troops occupying territory with the incumbent supply chain and support groups encamped along with them - provides the optimal outcome in ANY arab/Islamic country now. I think our enemy is simply too mobile, too adaptive and too invisible to deal with using such conventional military methods.
I think special ops combined with a massive HUMINT effort, major efforts at freezing financial assets, getting help from the aforementioned arab leaders (provided out of their own enlightened self-interest), combined with some real long term efforts at reducing the socio-economic inequities that spawn extremism in the Islamic world would yield much more valuable results.
So whats your stance on the wire taps and all the Humintel that a lot of libs are crying is violating civil rights and the Constitution?
The wire taps do not violate any rights. They can not be used in a court of law. And wire taps is a misnomer. We are talking about new technology that our laws have not caught up with. Foreigners FROM foreign countries are NOT protected by our Bill of Rights, the taps are specific and only used on foreign calls.
What about " profiling"? How about rules about random searches rather than focused searches at Airports and other areas in danger? What was your opinion on the Imans on that Airplane and their demands to be able to sue people after their antics?
Since your opinion is that Sunni and Shiite can never live together peacefully, whats your position on allowing either of these groups to immigrate to the US?
Are you expecting a cookie or is this where im supposed to feed your ego as if your military history validates you idiot rantings on this messageboard?
Please answer.. does your previous service give you a blank check to act as if, somehow, your retired rhetoric means anything more than the diarrhea of the keyboard that it is?
Sorry to burst that bubble, dude. Last I read this isnt a fucking Robert Heinlein book where only ex-military gets to be critical of opinons..
notice, no where in my post did you see the word babykiller so you can spare me that label too while you sit there trying to have a pissing contest with military service that doesnt validate your stupid ass opinions then just like it doesnt today in 2007.
now, did you find where I even REMOTELY said anything about disbanding the military or is that what your lame fucking red herring was all about?
when the going gets tough scream "he spit in my face", right buddy?
does that work on every other thread where you cant seem to follow through with the topic of the thread?
if the government listens in on the conversations of citizens without a court order - even a postdated FISA court order - I am philosophically opposed to it.
I am not as opposed to profiling as I am to unwarranted wiretapping, that is for sure. Strip searching little old ladies at airports in order to avoid the appearance of profiling is stupid... but we ought not to be too surprised when a non-arabic, non-threatening looking terrorist slips past while we are searching every arab.
And I think we should allow everyone, except criminals, to immigate to the US. Irishmen hate Englishmen.... so what. They don't have to live in the same neighborhood, the same town or the same state, for that matter, once they get here. Iraqi sunnis and shiites are forced together by reason of lines drawn on a map by Europeans who had no idea of the ramifications.
So do terrorists have US Constitutional rights?
that depends on whether they are American citizens or not.
The why are libs wanting to give foreign terrorists US Constitutional rights?
The residents of Club GITMO come to mind
I believe we are talking about warrantless wiretaps here.
Strange how libs demand terrorists be allowed to plan their attacks in private without their rights being violated
I demand nothing of the sort. I only demand that constitutional rights of citizens not be violated.
Franklin said: he who would give up liberty for security deserves neither.
Then please tell the Dems in Congress, and the ACLU terrorists are not entitled to US Constitutional rights
citizens who are suspected to be terrorists ARE entitled to US constitutional rights... and my congressman knows how I feel about that.
Have you communicated with YOURS, or do you just confine your bitching to message boards?
I demand nothing of the sort. I only demand that constitutional rights of citizens not be violated.
Franklin said: he who would give up liberty for security deserves neither.
