(03-02-2015 11:47 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Neither do I, and neither do you. And yet here we are, arguing that Obama should be doing something else, without being able to say what that something else is.

We can know enough to know that what he is doing makes no sense, without having sufficient information to know precisely what he should be doing instead.

(03-02-2015 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 11:47 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Neither do I, and neither do you. And yet here we are, arguing that Obama should be doing something else, without being able to say what that something else is.

We can know enough to know that what he is doing makes no sense, without having sufficient information to know precisely what he should be doing instead.

But we don't. And besides, the original point was that Walker seemed to claim he knew how to handle ISIS. So he apparently doesn't need any additional information.

(03-02-2015 03:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We can know enough to know that what he is doing makes no sense, without having sufficient information to know precisely what he should be doing instead.

But we don't. And besides, the original point was that Walker seemed to claim he knew how to handle ISIS. So he apparently doesn't need any additional information.

Maybe you don't, but I actually do know enough to know that what we are doing now won't work, just as what we've done for the last 14 years wont' work. Then again, I've spent a lot more time in the region, and my time outside the region had much more involvement with the region, than most people experience.

No, Walker did not claim to know how to handle ISIS, any more than he compared unions to ISIS. He claimed to have the personal characteristics needed to deal with large problems and difficult situations.

(03-02-2015 03:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 03:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We can know enough to know that what he is doing makes no sense, without having sufficient information to know precisely what he should be doing instead.

But we don't. And besides, the original point was that Walker seemed to claim he knew how to handle ISIS. So he apparently doesn't need any additional information.

Maybe you don't, but I actually do know enough to know that what we are doing now won't work, just as what we've done for the last 14 years wont' work. Then again, I've spent a lot more time in the region, and my time outside the region had much more involvement with the region, than most people experience.

No, Walker did not claim to know how to handle ISIS, any more than he compared unions to ISIS. He claimed to have the personal characteristics needed to deal with large problems and difficult situations.

"If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world," Walker told a packed crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference, in response to a question about how he would fight the terrorist group.

When you say what we're doing now won't work, what do you mean by "work"? Getting rid of ISIS altogether? Maybe not, but why is that the only answer? And what happens after we invade Iraq and Syria - you do know that that's the only way we get rid of them, unless we wait until one of the local countries gets fed up and invades with massive forces? How many more US soldiers have to die so our president can be "tough" and satisfy the military-industrial complex and the right-wingers? Who else do we have to get rid of across the globe? How many other countries do we have to invade because the people there are "bad"? When do we take out North Korea?

We'd be there in perpetuity, unless we pull out eventually, and when that happens, it will all fall apart again. 30 years from now we pull out, and then it falls apart and then the president gets blamed for pulling out. It's not hard to predict. We can't fight their wars.

And there are lots of other options that Obama could take that "wouldn't work". Like doing nothing and letting the Iraqis fight ISIS without any support.

(03-02-2015 04:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world," Walker told a packed crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference, in response to a question about how he would fight the terrorist group.

As I stated above, that is not a claim to know what to do about ISIS, but rather a very specific claim to have the personal characteristics to deal with such difficult problems.

Quote:And what happens after we invade Iraq and Syria - you do know that that's the only way we get rid of them, unless we wait until one of the local countries gets fed up and invades with massive forces?

You are proving my point. If that is in fact the only way to get rid of them (which it may or not be), then obviously military action stopping short of that is undoubtedly wrong. We're taking all of the risks for none of the rewards.

We either go in to win or get the hell out. My own preference is for getting the hell out of this one. We've screwed things up enough over there.

Quote:
And there are lots of other options that Obama could take that "wouldn't work". Like doing nothing and letting the Iraqis fight ISIS without any support.

That has a better chance of producing a positive result than what we are doing. I still think we may be on a grand strategy to embrace Iran, and if so then weakening ISIS would further that.

(03-02-2015 04:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 04:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world," Walker told a packed crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference, in response to a question about how he would fight the terrorist group.

As I stated above, that is not a claim to know what to do about ISIS, but rather a very specific claim to have the personal characteristics to deal with such difficult problems.

Quote:And what happens after we invade Iraq and Syria - you do know that that's the only way we get rid of them, unless we wait until one of the local countries gets fed up and invades with massive forces?

You are proving my point. If that is in fact the only way to get rid of them (which it may or not be), then obviously military action stopping short of that is undoubtedly wrong. We're taking all of the risks for none of the rewards.

We either go in to win or get the hell out. My own preference is for getting the hell out of this one. We've screwed things up enough over there.

Quote:
And there are lots of other options that Obama could take that "wouldn't work". Like doing nothing and letting the Iraqis fight ISIS without any support.

That has a better chance of producing a positive result than what we are doing. I still think we may be on a grand strategy to embrace Iran, and if so then weakening ISIS would further that.

How so? How many of our servicemen have been killed or injured? How many would be killed if we invaded? Hint: A lot more. How much would the war cost then? Hint: A lot.

You can argue that being out of it altogether is the better choice. IMO invading is the worst possible choice, because even after all the death, destruction and monetary costs, there's only a certain probability that it will lead to any kind of desirable result. And that's what makes that the worst option. If we knew we could take care of the problem and it would be over with, that would be entirely different.

I also think it's silly to think that his "personal characteristics" would be enough to make all the right decisions in handling ISIS.

(03-02-2015 04:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  How so? How many of our servicemen have been killed or injured? How many would be killed if we invaded? Hint: A lot more. How much would the war cost then? Hint: A lot.
You can argue that being out of it altogether is the better choice. IMO invading is the worst possible choice, because even after all the death, destruction and monetary costs, there's only a certain probability that it will lead to any kind of desirable result. And that's what makes that the worst option. If we knew we could take care of the problem and it would be over with, that would be entirely different.

Why risk even one soldier/sailor/airman/marine/officer in an effort that we agree cannot produce a positive result? We've spent the last 5 decades engaging in supposedly "low risk" strategies that never had a chance to produce positive results. Sometimes mission creep kept accelerating the effort until we had some significant risks go bad--like Vietnam or Iraq II. Sometimes we realized the futility and pulled out--like Reagan in Lebanon or Clinton in the Balkans and Somalia. The one time we went full bore--GHWB in Iraq I--we pulled out because even a great success was creating an untenable situation. We can't take care of the problem--or perhaps more correctly, we won't take care of the problem--therefore we should come home. Picking at the scab may not get any troops killed today, but it breeds hatred that will kill people in the future.

Quote:I also think it's silly to think that his "personal characteristics" would be enough to make all the right decisions in handling ISIS.

Query relevance. Nobody is making that claim.

(03-02-2015 05:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 04:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  How so? How many of our servicemen have been killed or injured? How many would be killed if we invaded? Hint: A lot more. How much would the war cost then? Hint: A lot.
You can argue that being out of it altogether is the better choice. IMO invading is the worst possible choice, because even after all the death, destruction and monetary costs, there's only a certain probability that it will lead to any kind of desirable result. And that's what makes that the worst option. If we knew we could take care of the problem and it would be over with, that would be entirely different.

Why risk even one soldier/sailor/airman/marine/officer in an effort that we agree cannot produce a positive result? We've spent the last 5 decades engaging in supposedly "low risk" strategies that never had a chance to produce positive results. Sometimes mission creep kept accelerating the effort until we had some significant risks go bad--like Vietnam or Iraq II. Sometimes we realized the futility and pulled out--like Reagan in Lebanon or Clinton in the Balkans and Somalia. The one time we went full bore--GHWB in Iraq I--we pulled out because even a great success was creating an untenable situation. We can't take care of the problem--or perhaps more correctly, we won't take care of the problem--therefore we should come home. Picking at the scab may not get any troops killed today, but it breeds hatred that will kill people in the future.

Quote:I also think it's silly to think that his "personal characteristics" would be enough to make all the right decisions in handling ISIS.

Query relevance. Nobody is making that claim.

Then what Walker said made no sense or at least had no meaning whatsoever.

I'm sure the hope is that a little bombing combined with the efforts of the Kurds and Iraqi army will be enough to roll them back at least some. I'm sure we are doing more to help them than just bombing. With that, we can at least limit how many areas ISIS has to kill people.

I also don't think we're breeding much if any hatred at this point. ISIS has seen to that with their actions. I think if we invaded then ISIS would have their Rome to fight, and they could probably attract more lunatics to their cause. But attacking in concert with other Iraqis (real concert, not us doing the attacking and them hanging back) makes us much less of a target, and fewer muslims will sign up with ISIS to fight fellow Iraqis.

Staying out may be the best option - I think that's unclear - but I don't think what Obama is doing is the worst option.

(03-02-2015 04:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  How so? How many of our servicemen have been killed or injured? How many would be killed if we invaded? Hint: A lot more. How much would the war cost then? Hint: A lot.

You can argue that being out of it altogether is the better choice. IMO invading is the worst possible choice, because even after all the death, destruction and monetary costs, there's only a certain probability that it will lead to any kind of desirable result. And that's what makes that the worst option. If we knew we could take care of the problem and it would be over with, that would be entirely different.

I also think it's silly to think that his "personal characteristics" would be enough to make all the right decisions in handling ISIS.

What we are doing is the equivalent of if when I was sent to a heavily involved house fire and we knocked the fire down with our deck gun from outside and didn't send anybody in with handlines to hit the hot spots. Sure we eliminated the risk right now, but come 1 or 2 AM when it rekindles we are probably going to have a much larger fire to put out in a now weaker structure so while the first time around we didn't get anyone hurt we are putting our crews at greater risks the second time around.

If you are going to commit to action then do so as violently as it takes to wipe out the threat because the threat you wipe out today is one you don't have to worry about tomorrow.

(03-02-2015 05:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Then what Walker said made no sense or at least had no meaning whatsoever.

Of course it made sense. He didn't say what you and others have been trying to make him have said, but what he said is sensible and useful.

Quote:I'm sure the hope is that a little bombing combined with the efforts of the Kurds and Iraqi army will be enough to roll them back at least some. I'm sure we are doing more to help them than just bombing. With that, we can at least limit how many areas ISIS has to kill people.
I also don't think we're breeding much if any hatred at this point. ISIS has seen to that with their actions. I think if we invaded then ISIS would have their Rome to fight, and they could probably attract more lunatics to their cause. But attacking in concert with other Iraqis (real concert, not us doing the attacking and them hanging back) makes us much less of a target, and fewer muslims will sign up with ISIS to fight fellow Iraqis.
Staying out may be the best option - I think that's unclear - but I don't think what Obama is doing is the worst option.

Limited warfare has been consistently the worst option in various situations on several continents for several decades. In to win or don't go in. In this case, I don't think there's an "in to win" situation. Our "in to go half-assed" approach has already screwed this one up beyond repair.

What we need to do about the Mideast is simple:
1) Become energy independent, then
2) Get the f-k out, and
3) Stay the f-k out

(03-02-2015 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 05:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Then what Walker said made no sense or at least had no meaning whatsoever.

Of course it made sense. He didn't say what you and others have been trying to make him have said, but what he said is sensible and useful.

Quote:I'm sure the hope is that a little bombing combined with the efforts of the Kurds and Iraqi army will be enough to roll them back at least some. I'm sure we are doing more to help them than just bombing. With that, we can at least limit how many areas ISIS has to kill people.
I also don't think we're breeding much if any hatred at this point. ISIS has seen to that with their actions. I think if we invaded then ISIS would have their Rome to fight, and they could probably attract more lunatics to their cause. But attacking in concert with other Iraqis (real concert, not us doing the attacking and them hanging back) makes us much less of a target, and fewer muslims will sign up with ISIS to fight fellow Iraqis.
Staying out may be the best option - I think that's unclear - but I don't think what Obama is doing is the worst option.

Limited warfare has been consistently the worst option in various situations on several continents for several decades. In to win or don't go in. In this case, I don't think there's an "in to win" situation. Our "in to go half-assed" approach has already screwed this one up beyond repair.

What we need to do about the Mideast is simple:
1) Become energy independent, then
2) Get the f-k out, and
3) Stay the f-k out

I think we can help allies like Israel without boots on the ground. We should not try to change the balance of power in nations, like Obama did in Libya and Egypt. The strongest should have been allowed to determine the direction of their nation.

(03-02-2015 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 05:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Then what Walker said made no sense or at least had no meaning whatsoever.

Of course it made sense. He didn't say what you and others have been trying to make him have said, but what he said is sensible and useful.

Quote:I'm sure the hope is that a little bombing combined with the efforts of the Kurds and Iraqi army will be enough to roll them back at least some. I'm sure we are doing more to help them than just bombing. With that, we can at least limit how many areas ISIS has to kill people.
I also don't think we're breeding much if any hatred at this point. ISIS has seen to that with their actions. I think if we invaded then ISIS would have their Rome to fight, and they could probably attract more lunatics to their cause. But attacking in concert with other Iraqis (real concert, not us doing the attacking and them hanging back) makes us much less of a target, and fewer muslims will sign up with ISIS to fight fellow Iraqis.
Staying out may be the best option - I think that's unclear - but I don't think what Obama is doing is the worst option.

Limited warfare has been consistently the worst option in various situations on several continents for several decades. In to win or don't go in. In this case, I don't think there's an "in to win" situation. Our "in to go half-assed" approach has already screwed this one up beyond repair.

What we need to do about the Mideast is simple:
1) Become energy independent, then
2) Get the f-k out, and
3) Stay the f-k out

I would agree with this. As someone that wants a decisive victory there is no doubt that half measures and arbitrary troop pullout timelines as been a disaster.

The problem is, why I know people want us completely out of the region, due to oil and the global economy we as well as other developed nations are always going to have a presence in the region. The only way we can ignore the middle east is to completely become energy dependent. That is why the Keystone pipeline was such a big deal. With it, the US, Canada and Mexico could form a counter to OPEC to in effect drive oil prices here and lessen the importance of OPEC.

(02-27-2015 07:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I just admitted to you I can not talk rationally about these issues. I can't. Know thyself they say. I have personally benefitted from Unions. I can not see them doing wrong in any situation. The ends justify the means in all cases for me. I know people are going to save this. Paul can bookmark it. I don't care. I will go to my dying last breath knowing they are a great and beautiful thing. I know I can not rationally discuss unions. It's my Achilles heel. They have done far far too much good. They are the way the truth and the light to me. Through them all good things are made.

Here's your problem Mach.. you've discussed _two_ different union types in your arguments.. Local unions (pipefitters, welders, etc.) and national unions. And you keep trying to fit them under one banner, and it cannot be done.

Until you realize you HAVE to separate the two, you're never going to be able to look at unions with a fair outlook

Heck, I can't think of anyone on here who has said anything bad about the local unions... probably one of our louisiana boys on here has).

But when it comes to NATIONAL type unions.. take off the blinders and look at what they do / don't do.

(03-02-2015 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 05:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Then what Walker said made no sense or at least had no meaning whatsoever.

Of course it made sense. He didn't say what you and others have been trying to make him have said, but what he said is sensible and useful.

Quote:I'm sure the hope is that a little bombing combined with the efforts of the Kurds and Iraqi army will be enough to roll them back at least some. I'm sure we are doing more to help them than just bombing. With that, we can at least limit how many areas ISIS has to kill people.
I also don't think we're breeding much if any hatred at this point. ISIS has seen to that with their actions. I think if we invaded then ISIS would have their Rome to fight, and they could probably attract more lunatics to their cause. But attacking in concert with other Iraqis (real concert, not us doing the attacking and them hanging back) makes us much less of a target, and fewer muslims will sign up with ISIS to fight fellow Iraqis.
Staying out may be the best option - I think that's unclear - but I don't think what Obama is doing is the worst option.

Limited warfare has been consistently the worst option in various situations on several continents for several decades. In to win or don't go in. In this case, I don't think there's an "in to win" situation. Our "in to go half-assed" approach has already screwed this one up beyond repair.

What we need to do about the Mideast is simple:
1) Become energy independent, then
2) Get the f-k out, and
3) Stay the f-k out

So you're saying that invading Iraq and Syria again, despite all the costs, and despite the fact that we'll still end up with a messed up Middle East afterwards, is still better than limited bombing. You'd rather have hundreds or thousands of US soldiers killed for an arbitrary chance that the situation will be better afterwards, then a limited attempt to help others defend their own country in another part of the world?

And there's no proof that anything we could have done in Iraq would have made a difference in the long run. Going "all in" is no guarantee either but you like to repeat that since there's no way to disprove it.

(03-02-2015 05:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 04:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  How so? How many of our servicemen have been killed or injured? How many would be killed if we invaded? Hint: A lot more. How much would the war cost then? Hint: A lot.

You can argue that being out of it altogether is the better choice. IMO invading is the worst possible choice, because even after all the death, destruction and monetary costs, there's only a certain probability that it will lead to any kind of desirable result. And that's what makes that the worst option. If we knew we could take care of the problem and it would be over with, that would be entirely different.

I also think it's silly to think that his "personal characteristics" would be enough to make all the right decisions in handling ISIS.

What we are doing is the equivalent of if when I was sent to a heavily involved house fire and we knocked the fire down with our deck gun from outside and didn't send anybody in with handlines to hit the hot spots. Sure we eliminated the risk right now, but come 1 or 2 AM when it rekindles we are probably going to have a much larger fire to put out in a now weaker structure so while the first time around we didn't get anyone hurt we are putting our crews at greater risks the second time around.

If you are going to commit to action then do so as violently as it takes to wipe out the threat because the threat you wipe out today is one you don't have to worry about tomorrow.

So we're the fire department for the entire world?

(03-03-2015 09:17 AM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 05:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Then what Walker said made no sense or at least had no meaning whatsoever.

Of course it made sense. He didn't say what you and others have been trying to make him have said, but what he said is sensible and useful.

Quote:I'm sure the hope is that a little bombing combined with the efforts of the Kurds and Iraqi army will be enough to roll them back at least some. I'm sure we are doing more to help them than just bombing. With that, we can at least limit how many areas ISIS has to kill people.
I also don't think we're breeding much if any hatred at this point. ISIS has seen to that with their actions. I think if we invaded then ISIS would have their Rome to fight, and they could probably attract more lunatics to their cause. But attacking in concert with other Iraqis (real concert, not us doing the attacking and them hanging back) makes us much less of a target, and fewer muslims will sign up with ISIS to fight fellow Iraqis.
Staying out may be the best option - I think that's unclear - but I don't think what Obama is doing is the worst option.

Limited warfare has been consistently the worst option in various situations on several continents for several decades. In to win or don't go in. In this case, I don't think there's an "in to win" situation. Our "in to go half-assed" approach has already screwed this one up beyond repair.

What we need to do about the Mideast is simple:
1) Become energy independent, then
2) Get the f-k out, and
3) Stay the f-k out

The problem is, why I know people want us completely out of the region, due to oil and the global economy we as well as other developed nations are always going to have a presence in the region. The only way we can ignore the middle east is to completely become energy dependent. That is why the Keystone pipeline was such a big deal. With it, the US, Canada and Mexico could form a counter to OPEC to in effect drive oil prices here and lessen the importance of OPEC.

This is one of those points where Owl and I have probably our biggest disagreement in terms of politics.

IMO, too many people simply don't include the fact that right now we're a global economy, which means we still have assets and items in those areas where the "draw downers" want us to pull back from.

They may not be the key cogs in the economy, but there still American resources and supplies which needs to have protection available where they can call on it.

(03-03-2015 10:13 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 05:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 04:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  How so? How many of our servicemen have been killed or injured? How many would be killed if we invaded? Hint: A lot more. How much would the war cost then? Hint: A lot.

You can argue that being out of it altogether is the better choice. IMO invading is the worst possible choice, because even after all the death, destruction and monetary costs, there's only a certain probability that it will lead to any kind of desirable result. And that's what makes that the worst option. If we knew we could take care of the problem and it would be over with, that would be entirely different.

I also think it's silly to think that his "personal characteristics" would be enough to make all the right decisions in handling ISIS.

What we are doing is the equivalent of if when I was sent to a heavily involved house fire and we knocked the fire down with our deck gun from outside and didn't send anybody in with handlines to hit the hot spots. Sure we eliminated the risk right now, but come 1 or 2 AM when it rekindles we are probably going to have a much larger fire to put out in a now weaker structure so while the first time around we didn't get anyone hurt we are putting our crews at greater risks the second time around.

If you are going to commit to action then do so as violently as it takes to wipe out the threat because the threat you wipe out today is one you don't have to worry about tomorrow.

So we're the fire department for the entire world?

Where have you been? We've been the world's fire department since April of 1917.

(03-03-2015 10:17 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 10:13 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 05:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 04:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  How so? How many of our servicemen have been killed or injured? How many would be killed if we invaded? Hint: A lot more. How much would the war cost then? Hint: A lot.

You can argue that being out of it altogether is the better choice. IMO invading is the worst possible choice, because even after all the death, destruction and monetary costs, there's only a certain probability that it will lead to any kind of desirable result. And that's what makes that the worst option. If we knew we could take care of the problem and it would be over with, that would be entirely different.

I also think it's silly to think that his "personal characteristics" would be enough to make all the right decisions in handling ISIS.

What we are doing is the equivalent of if when I was sent to a heavily involved house fire and we knocked the fire down with our deck gun from outside and didn't send anybody in with handlines to hit the hot spots. Sure we eliminated the risk right now, but come 1 or 2 AM when it rekindles we are probably going to have a much larger fire to put out in a now weaker structure so while the first time around we didn't get anyone hurt we are putting our crews at greater risks the second time around.

If you are going to commit to action then do so as violently as it takes to wipe out the threat because the threat you wipe out today is one you don't have to worry about tomorrow.

So we're the fire department for the entire world?

Where have you been? We've been the world's fire department since April of 1917.

We didn't even enter WWII until somebody attacked US territory. We also have large deficits that aren't helped by constantly going to war in areas where our expectations of results are out of touch with reality.

I should have worded that question differently: "We're supposed to be the fire department for the entire world?"

(03-03-2015 10:25 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 10:17 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 10:13 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 05:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 04:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  How so? How many of our servicemen have been killed or injured? How many would be killed if we invaded? Hint: A lot more. How much would the war cost then? Hint: A lot.

You can argue that being out of it altogether is the better choice. IMO invading is the worst possible choice, because even after all the death, destruction and monetary costs, there's only a certain probability that it will lead to any kind of desirable result. And that's what makes that the worst option. If we knew we could take care of the problem and it would be over with, that would be entirely different.

I also think it's silly to think that his "personal characteristics" would be enough to make all the right decisions in handling ISIS.

What we are doing is the equivalent of if when I was sent to a heavily involved house fire and we knocked the fire down with our deck gun from outside and didn't send anybody in with handlines to hit the hot spots. Sure we eliminated the risk right now, but come 1 or 2 AM when it rekindles we are probably going to have a much larger fire to put out in a now weaker structure so while the first time around we didn't get anyone hurt we are putting our crews at greater risks the second time around.

If you are going to commit to action then do so as violently as it takes to wipe out the threat because the threat you wipe out today is one you don't have to worry about tomorrow.

So we're the fire department for the entire world?

Where have you been? We've been the world's fire department since April of 1917.

We didn't even enter WWII until somebody attacked US territory. We also have large deficits that aren't helped by constantly going to war in areas where our expectations of results are out of touch with reality.

I should have worded that question differently: "We're supposed to be the fire department for the entire world?"

As desirable as some think it would be to withdraw into our own little world the reality is if we don't do it someone else will take our place. How do you think it is going to turn out for us if the world's fire department is headquartered in Moscow or Beijing?

(03-03-2015 10:33 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 10:25 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 10:17 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 10:13 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 05:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  What we are doing is the equivalent of if when I was sent to a heavily involved house fire and we knocked the fire down with our deck gun from outside and didn't send anybody in with handlines to hit the hot spots. Sure we eliminated the risk right now, but come 1 or 2 AM when it rekindles we are probably going to have a much larger fire to put out in a now weaker structure so while the first time around we didn't get anyone hurt we are putting our crews at greater risks the second time around.

If you are going to commit to action then do so as violently as it takes to wipe out the threat because the threat you wipe out today is one you don't have to worry about tomorrow.

So we're the fire department for the entire world?

Where have you been? We've been the world's fire department since April of 1917.

We didn't even enter WWII until somebody attacked US territory. We also have large deficits that aren't helped by constantly going to war in areas where our expectations of results are out of touch with reality.

I should have worded that question differently: "We're supposed to be the fire department for the entire world?"

As desirable as some think it would be to withdraw into our own little world the reality is if we don't do it someone else will take our place. How do you think it is going to turn out for us if the world's fire department is headquartered in Moscow or Beijing?

I just think we have to pick our fights more carefully, and get our own house in order.