1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Scary Situation Brewing in the Middle East...

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by Mystery Squid, Jan 26, 2006.

Page 4 of 12
  1. windstrings

    windstrings Certified Prius Breeder

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    6,280
    378
    0
    Location:
    Central Texas
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    I prefer gernades....
     
    #61 windstrings, Jan 29, 2006
  2. maggieddd

    maggieddd Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    2,090
    13
    0
    Location:
    Boston
    Naive about what?
     
    #62 maggieddd, Jan 29, 2006
  3. JackDodge

    JackDodge Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    2,366
    4
    0
    Location:
    Bloomfield Hills, MI
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    When are you planning on enlisting?
     
    #63 JackDodge, Jan 29, 2006
  4. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    Are there any service people out there that did NOT choose their enlistment?

    FWIW: I enlisted in the USAF after high school, during the first Gulf war, whereas ultimately an eye condition was discovered that disqualified me from serving, thereby "forcing" me into college... ;) Disqualified me from ALL branches of service, the infamous "PDQ" status, "permanently disqualified"... It's nothing bad though, I simply have to wear hard lenses instead of soft, as my cornea has a topography versus a smooth curve.

    Oh yeah, and I even had a Senator and Congressman from Connecticut lobby, on my behalf, to the USAF. I did everything I possibly could to get any waiver, anything.
     
    #64 Mystery Squid, Jan 29, 2006
  5. windstrings

    windstrings Certified Prius Breeder

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    6,280
    378
    0
    Location:
    Central Texas
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    IV

    The Army just raised the enlistment age to 40..... I'm too old.
     
    #65 windstrings, Jan 29, 2006
  6. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    That has already been answered within my recent posts.
     
    #66 Mystery Squid, Jan 29, 2006
  7. maggieddd

    maggieddd Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    2,090
    13
    0
    Location:
    Boston
    FALSE, you are clearly dillusional
    BTW, which Cambridge did you have in mind, the one in UK or some other one, as I would love to check out these tea-houses you mentioned.
     
    #67 maggieddd, Jan 29, 2006
  8. JackDodge

    JackDodge Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    2,366
    4
    0
    Location:
    Bloomfield Hills, MI
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    The USAF? I often wonder why Bush didn't go in to the USAF. It's safer than the National Guard. :p Maybe he didn't like the standard issue camouflaged panties.
     
    #68 JackDodge, Jan 29, 2006
  9. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    :rolleyes:

    relax. it was simply an arbitrary example to illustrate a point... :lol:
     
    #69 Mystery Squid, Jan 29, 2006
  10. tleonhar

    tleonhar Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    1,541
    34
    0
    Location:
    Belle Plaine, MN
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Model:
    N/A

    Harder to go AWOL from the Air Force??? ;)
     
    #70 tleonhar, Jan 29, 2006
  11. windstrings

    windstrings Certified Prius Breeder

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    6,280
    378
    0
    Location:
    Central Texas
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    IV

    Humm.... When I think about this... Turning and running from terrorists is the same spirit of AWOL.

    In both instances, they are afraid to fight for fear of thier own skin and needs without regard for those to whom they are supposed to be protecting.

    We have alot of citizens who have committed AWOL and have checked out of reality and ran from that reality and thier fears.
     
    #71 windstrings, Jan 29, 2006
  12. PriusKid

    PriusKid New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    3
    0
    0
    My suggestion is that we liberate and unleash Israel. Within 48 they could lauch a blitzkrieg with their air forces, missles, tanks, and armored infantry mobile divisions to destroy Iran, Lebanon, and all the military targets in Saudi Arabia. The oil facilities would be seized as well as simultaneous nuclear bomb strikes against Iran nuclear facilities and command centers. With the Middle East in Israeli de facto control, the USA would admit Israel--and all of its occupied territories and recent acquisitions--as a state in the United States. :D
     
    #72 PriusKid, Jan 29, 2006
  13. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,192
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    You've accused 2 people of being arm-chair generals and then go into your own description of a military situation and proffer your solutions.

    Yes, we're being arm-chair generals. As the citizens of the US we are the the moral base and the virtural conscious of our military and, thus, these situations demand our consideration in a critical manner.

    In the hypothetical you describe above I dare say you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would offer serious disagreement that taking out that target given 1)Solid evidence of his/her presence and 2)Solid evidence of the impending attack.

    The problem is that in most of our neighborhood destroying missle attacks we've had neither of the above 2 things after critical analysis. In fact it turns out that fairly unreliable sources gave the information and the 'urgency of the moment' forced the decision ultimately missing the target and killing innocents.

    And what situations did we actually kill or capture 'bad guys'? When we had boots on the ground and eyes on the target...Hussain's sons killed during live fire fights. Rarely have the remote rocket attacks resulted in clear kills of viable targets.

    With that knowledge, this arm-chair General suggests reassessment of that means of eliminating targets is reasonable and necessary.
     
    #73 efusco, Jan 30, 2006
  14. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    Oh? Where did I offer a solution? I merely acknowledge the reality of Machiavellian concepts as opposed to screaming how such concepts aren't working, or is it simply another facet of Bush-bashers such as yourself. Which, incidentally, is rather amusing, for how do we really know what's working and what isn't. Do we have any deeply embedded CIA/NSA folks who can share with us the precise topography of this war?

    There you go again with the one sided thinking that "evidence" must surely exist. But of course, we can't act without "evidence" can we? You, of ALL people, should grasp this concept.

    Do your really think the U.S. has an obligation to keep their "bad guys killed today" website up to date and accurate? Do you not think there are many reasons that information must remain secret such as to not impact some other facet of an intelligence war that is no doubt raging behind the scenes?

    Ok Evan Fusco, Super Agent, we'll trust you have more information than what you're fed on the 6 o'clock news and various internet sites. Which, incidentally, if you haven't already come across it, here's a great site for the Evan's and Maggie's of the world:

    www.bartcop.com
     
    #74 Mystery Squid, Jan 30, 2006
  15. LaughingMan

    LaughingMan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    1,386
    2
    0
    Location:
    Marlborough, MA
    It seems to me that the kernel of your argument is that the ends justify the means, in some cases...

    collateral damage and all is justifiable then, whether you were able to hit the terrorists, or if your target on the ground were some Canadians doing target practice that you killed by accident.

    To this I respectfully disagree. I see it as a slippery slope. If we can say that the ends justify the means when we are on the battlefield of the war on terror, then what stops us from using the same techniques in the war on crime? or the war on drugs? Practicality? Price of the bombs?
     
    #75 LaughingMan, Jan 30, 2006
  16. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    I'm simply not excluding it from the range of options, that is all. You seem to have a contingency of people who don't like acknowledging there are times (and probably more often than we'd like) where there are NO absolutes, and a decision must be made, a chance must be taken given a range of possible outcomes.

    What gets me are those that hate Bush so much, they use such concepts to bolster their opinion on just how much of a terrible President he is. It's like they hate Bush so much, the bias/hate/and logic just seem to blur...
     
    #76 Mystery Squid, Jan 30, 2006
  17. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    Well then, that's where the Devil lies...
     
    #77 Mystery Squid, Jan 30, 2006
  18. LaughingMan

    LaughingMan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    1,386
    2
    0
    Location:
    Marlborough, MA
    We don't like acknowledging it, but I personally understand that it is a reality in war... a terribly sad reality, of course, because of the fallability of human decisions.

    There is so much more to my dislike of President Bush than this issue. People have to remember that this issue transcends Bush... he's just the President... Clinton ordered air strikes during his presidency. Collateral damage there too, and that also saddens me... so there's nothing particularly unique about Bush with respect to this...

    But i still have many many more gripes about Bush, this war, and our military.

    In my opinion... the administration and the military decided to conduct this war in a very conventional sense at first... nation vs. nation... shock and awe... but soon became mired in the insurgency, which would last longer than the "conventional" war.

    Now the reality is clear: there is no military solution to the war in iraq, and the war on terror. We have to prepare a political accomodation for the Iraqis... we have to win hearts and minds.

    To me, this means that we can't just gloss over the issue of collateral damage and bombing like we're still fighting a conventional war. We don't want to demoralize the Iraqis... not any more. we have to give them the benefit of the doubt, like we do with our citizens here.
     
    #78 LaughingMan, Jan 30, 2006
  19. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,192
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Please point out where I've "Bush Bashed". I have offered legitimate criticism on specific points...If that's "bashing" I guess I'm guilty as charged. But, unless I misread the constitution, it is my right AND responsibility to be critical of the choices our gov't makes in order to keep them in check.

    "Again" Not I. But yes, I do demand some evidence. While I accept your arguement that evidence will not always be precise or exact we must have some degree of confidence beyond the word of some dude on the ground who claims he saw Saddam go into a restraunt before we launch a missle that'll take out an entire neighborhood.

    You love to think in black and white don't you. To the first sentance..."Yes"...to a degree. Absolutely we do not need to give up information critical to the war efforts. But the gov't as much as anyone loves to tout the things they've done well...there's been an amazing paucity of that kind of info from all these 'precision strikes'.

    no more the super agent than you MS, but bright enough to know when to ask questions and not just put blind faith in our leaders.
     
    #79 efusco, Jan 30, 2006
  20. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0

    Well, which is it? "Solid" or a "degree of confidence"? :lol:


    :lol: If there's anyone trying to think in B&W it's you, haven't I repeatedly mentioned there are rarely any absolutes, and that sometimes we must make decisions based of "likely-hoods"? YOU'RE the ones looking for absolutes in terms of "evidence", whereas even YOU agreed with my point it doesn't always exist.


    Please... :rolleyes:
     
    #80 Mystery Squid, Jan 30, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 12