Ahhh, spreading freedom...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 9 2006, 03:21 PM) [snapback]346456[/snapback]</div>

"War is the only [racket] in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Nov 9 2006, 03:45 PM) [snapback]346482[/snapback]</div>

One gross error was made - to try to get some reality in this thread - we should have gone in big and bad - not taken nation building as our goal - played it to make it a client state or states and been real about this. Shock and awe - played hardball with the three groups there - not let their bad guys escape into civilian clothing...

We will now see the Democratic Party approach to the Iraq War and the War on Terror... And we will see what it means for us, our safety and the future for terrorism in general.

It was easy to talk when talk was cheap. Now that they are in a position to do, to act - we shall see. As of next year they bear every burden for changes they put in place. Lets see them repeal the Patriot Act, give terrorists Habeus Corpus rights, stop the NSA from tapping INTERNATIONAL communications, etc, etc. Lets see how they appropriate funds to the CIA, FBI, and the DoD.

I stand by my view that this is a great thing for all Americans - the Dems taking control of the Congress.

 

"I stand by my view that this is a great thing for all Americans - the Dems taking control of the Congress"

Please explain.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 9 2006, 04:12 PM) [snapback]346509[/snapback]</div>

We're bigger and badder, but have lots more vulnerable infrastructure that's just waiting to be messed with (for example, last Fall I accidentally dropped my umbrella on the BART tracks, and brought the whole west side of the system to a grinding halt for nearly half an hour). Perhaps it's better to *not* piss anyone off, any more than they already have.

Besides, why is it so important to place blame upon an individual or a group? Does that really help? I don't think it does, actually.

Honestly, there are so many mischevious ways to pick away at our system...little miscellaneous things...that it seems impossible to defend everything completely against everyone.

It's better to not have to be so defensive in the first place, I would suggest...and that can only happen with cooperation, not violence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 9 2006, 01:12 PM) [snapback]346509[/snapback]</div>

The only difference between this sentiment and Hitler's is that Hitler had the identical idea 65 years sooner.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 9 2006, 01:12 PM) [snapback]346509[/snapback]</div>

Bombing to total destruction population centers 24/7, death by gunshot or explosive the leading cause of death, and this isn't hardball? You make your recommendation sound easy: just stop bad guys from hiding, hell, any kid can do that. Alright mister My-Strategy-Would-Have-Been-Superior, you who repeatedly challenge the participants of this board to delineate hypothetical courses of action, YOU spell out precisely how YOU would have "played hardball" and "not let their bad guys escape into civilian clothing." Specifically, not with vague hand waving. I'll assist you by pointing out that more than three relentless years of unremitting military violence have, so far, done worse than fail, so you may want to reconsider any temptation to ratchet up the violence (which may not be possible given the level it's at now without using nuclear weapons). But it's your floor. What's your formula?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 9 2006, 06:24 PM) [snapback]346682[/snapback]</div>

Well not exactly. Hitler's idea was Blitzkrieg, which was based on quick lightning fast, military strategic strikes and coordinated maneuvering. He actually wanted to keep the infrastructure of his conquered countries to aid in supplying his war machine. The total destruction part did not start until British bombers accidentally bombed a school or hospital (I forget which) and the German's retaliated in kind. Which obliged the Brit's to do the same, then back to the German’s and again and again the next thing you know, total destruction rained down on civilian targets in the city centers . . . Which seems kind of common sense and apropos since the civilian population and manufacturing was supporting the war effort. I would postulate that if the Brit’s had gone in with a “Shock and awe†attitude they would have ended the war much sooner and with less loss of life on account that the German’s did not have city centers well defended at the start of the war and thus the German army and economy would have been crippled much sooner in the war.

Wildkow