Wanna win?

Vagabond you speak like you actually know what you are talking about , we hardly ever see that these days. Most people on your side just curse all day and shout "Those Damn Liberals".

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Agreed, but how do we check China? I believe that the key to undermining China is to ally closely with India and open up markets for India in East Africa. We need a strong military with global reach to bring stability to potential partners and protect our investments there so that we can open up new resources to help alternative friends (as opposed to China) stay competitive so that we can enjoy mutually beneficial relationships with powers whos intentions are more honorable than Chinas. We're going to have to step on the toes of China, multinational corporations, and many nations who have a stake in those corporations. We're going to have to be able to go into tough places and carve out a future for ourselves and defend it.

In my opinion, America's survival hinges on control of Iran and Iraq, stability and development (which means political engineering, sometimes by military means) in East Africa, and as a consequence close ties with India and secondarily Russia (on a more uneasy level). We must make a nitche for ourselves in such a world as the technological leaders- the master link in a chain of mutual colonization if you will, whereby our advanced finished goods are traded for more generic Indian finished goods, which creates the budget for resources from Africa which makes the above possible. We have to take China out of the loop and establish fair and mutual relationships, and we're going to have to twist some arms and stare down some rivals to make it happen. We get in OK with India and Russia and we have much less to fear from Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba. Offense is Defense. Defense is offense.

Much respect to you Vagabond!

I think we can do it without stirring the pot as much as we are. I am afraid we are going to have this mid-east problem blow up in our collective faces. We definatly need to concentrate on Russia and India. The problem I feel is the oil industry is suppressing alternative fuel and forcing the mid-east into this global chess game. If we had that alternative fuel (which we WOULD have if not for the oil industry, I am sure you know this Vagabond) we wouldnt have this mess to contend with.

Originally posted by curme
Ok, now for a realistic way to win. This, of course, if your definition of winning is what is best for the Iraqi people.

Say no more, you're already way off the reservation. Let the Iraqis worry about what's best for the Iraqis (I assume they are- that's one of the reasons why some of them are fighting us- I realize they aren't ALL al qaida members or even necessarily sympathizers- it's just realpolitik for some.)
We're talking about America winning: ie, doing what's best for the continued survival of America and those whom we can count as friends and whom we need to have with us. The Iraqi people are welcome to join that team by the way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, life is a competition for survival. There is not enough to go around. Some will be poor. Some will have to trust in the goodness of others for their security. Not everyone can be on top. That's a sad fact of life. Whoever created this world created it imperfectly. Now there is no reason why we have to just hurt people for the sake of hurting people. I believe that you can strive to maintain superiority and still be benevolent to whatever extent those two things do not come into conflict. America has to be chiefly concerned however with making sure that we're not the ones who have to be poor, or perhaps not survive at all. We have to be chiefly concerned with being the ones who determine, by our dominance, whether there will be peace or not. Not because we wish to have power over others, but because we do not trust others with power over us. If you're not a predator, you're prey.

Obviously, US troops are no longer the solution. No matter how noble our goals, we can now only be perceived as a hindrance for a better life for the Iraqi people.

Our goals aren't noble. Our goal is to control an area which is economically and strategically important to our survival. Surviving isn't noble, just necessary. If we don't do it somebody else will. We may as well go ahead and be ignoble and not be prey. If you find prey to be noble, that's your call- go feed yourself to something. I don't believe in nobility, righteousness, good, justice, etc to the same degree that most people do. They are ideals. They are not perfectly attainable. They are partially obtainable, and it's adiviseable to obtain as much of them as you can, AFTER providing for your survival.

We need other nations help. We need blue helmets.

They would help, but we don't need them. The only way we can afford to buy their help is if the price will not include any danger of losing that key strategic ground. IF they will take the money, send their troops, and be content, fine, by all means, bring them in, and keep them as far away from combat as possible- one look at a frenchman will only encourage the terrorists. But the minute they want any say over our management of Iraq or our presence there, the deal is off.


Realism people. War isn't about who is right. It's about who is left. The critical point here is that nations have to do what best serves their own interests. Worrying about the Iraqis can wait till we've taken care of number one.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
The problem I feel is the oil industry is suppressing alternative fuel and forcing the mid-east into this global chess game. If we had that alternative fuel (which we WOULD have if not for the oil industry, I am sure you know this Vagabond) we wouldnt have this mess to contend with.

as a quick reference,

it takes more fossil fuel to make one gallon of bio-diesel or hydrogen than actually burning a gallon of gas.

Until it makes sense we are stuck unless you want to walk, freeze, and live in the wilderness because you will have no job.


Sadly, oil is here for the long term.






Vagabond,

All I can saw is WOW!






And you sum it up best with

If you're not a predator, you're prey





[edit on 15-8-2005 by edsinger]

Tesla made a car with an electric motor that ran on free energy and he tested it for a week, it was a simple device and the source would last forever, aether. The press gave him such a bad time about this that he just said f that and went on with his other research. When other scientists come close to something this amazing they either are shot or their labs are burnt to the ground.

The only imperfection with this world is us, if we weren't here to mess everything up earth would be a wonderful place for its inhabitants.

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkeyTesla made a car with an electric motor that ran on free energy

Look Telsa was a very smart man, as a electrical engineer myself I wish I had a tenth of that mans brains, but unless you know what you are talking about, don't spout it as truth.

There is no free energy, I have read his books as have many a folks, if it could be done like you say, it would already be done.


Thing about him is he was much smarter than Edison imho and he sure as heck loved that high frequency Stuff!

edsinger I know your heart is in the right place, I used to think just exactly like you. I know where you are comming from. There really is an energy that goes through the universe, it is in everything and it can explain the gaps in quantom physics. It is called string thoery and is goign to be very hard to prove. There is a sub-atomic string of energy that runs through everything, and maybe, just maybe Nic Tesla found a way to harness it.

It is there and if harnessed its power is unlimited. The problem is there is not a way to sell it as energy. You purchase the item, but cannot lease the energy out. The powers that be will plop this into our laps after they have sueezed the fossil fuel tit dry.

Oh by the way, bio-diesel can use corn-alchohol instead of fossil fuel. The diesel engine was invented to run off of this mixture so the farmers could be self-sufficient and grow there own fuel.

Very sad thread this one.

It brings out people who are born about 40 years to late, and would have made TOPNOTCH fascicts.

All you do is spread HATE, which will eventualy come right back at you.

Originally posted by edsinger
There is no free energy, I have read his books as have many a folks, if it could be done like you say, it would already be done.

There will never be free energy whilst the $$$$ and the ££££ rule the hearts and minds of men. That is why it has not been done (or rather admitted its been done)

Ninja, thanks for your kind words, and thanks especially for not writing me off as a "dang conservative".
Just to clarify though, I do hate the Democratic Party- but i hate the Republican Party just as much. If and When I finally get into politics they're gonna have to kill me, because I'll squeese every pressure point I can find to try and trick or force them into opening up the ballot and breaking their oligopoly on American politics.

As for Tesla- there's free energy, then there's energy that doesn't cost anything. They are not the same thing. Tesla's ideas, if I understand them correctly, did not provide "free energy". That is to say, they did not violate the first law of thermodynamics, which dictates that no process can either create or destroy energy, only transfer it between various forms. As I understand it, Tesla's ideas provided energy that doesn't cost anything by seeking to take advantage of the Earth as a dynamo which transfers work done by gravity into magnetism, which, if it could be harnessed, could of course be used to generate electrical current.

Edit to add:
I'd like to congratulate everyone on the fairly civil nature of this little discussion here. I remain in awe that my amoral (not to be confused with immoral) view on he matter hasn't earned me any flames.
Also, at the risk of a shameles plug... you might notice this little blue button that says "way above"... don't be shy lol. (I know how incredibly uncouthe that is, but dangit I want one of those little badges some day!)

[edit on 16-8-2005 by The Vagabond]

I have seen some radical views and some extreme tactcs propsed.
I've seen the justification and the reasons behind it.


I dont see this as being what we stand for, not what our lads and ladies in combat stand for.

Integrity
Do what is right, legally and morally.
Be willing to do what is right even when no one is looking.
It is our "moral compass" an inner voice.

www.army.mil...
US army values.

· Selfless Commitment: that is to put others before yourself;
· Courage: to face up to danger and do what is right;
· Discipline: to maintain the highest standards, so that others can rely on you;
· Integrity: to earn the respect and trust of your comrades;
· Loyalty: to be faithful to your comrades and your duty; and
· Respect for Others: to treat others with decency at all times.

UK armed forces values.
www.mod.uk...

integrity, service and excellence

atlas.usafa.af.mil...
USAF values.

Honor: "I will bear true faith and allegiance ..." Accordingly, we will: Conduct ourselves in the highest ethical manner in all relationships with peers, superiors and subordinates; Be honest and truthful in our dealings with each other, and with those outside the Navy; Be willing to make honest recommendations and accept those of junior personnel; Encourage new ideas and deliver the bad news, even when it is unpopular; Abide by an uncompromising code of integrity, taking responsibility for our actions and keeping our word; Fulfill or exceed our legal and ethical responsibilities in our public and personal lives twenty-four hours a day. Illegal or improper behavior or even the appearance of such behavior will not be tolerated. We are accountable for our professional and personal behavior. We will be mindful of the privilege to serve our fellow Americans.

Courage: "I will support and defend ..." Accordingly, we will have: courage to meet the demands of our profession and the mission when it is hazardous, demanding, or otherwise difficult; Make decisions in the best interest of the navy and the nation, without regard to personal consequences; Meet these challenges while adhering to a higher standard of personal conduct and decency; Be loyal to our nation, ensuring the resources entrusted to us are used in an honest, careful, and efficient way. Courage is the value that gives us the moral and mental strength to do what is right, even in the face of personal or professional adversity.

Commitment: "I will obey the orders ..." Accordingly, we will: Demand respect up and down the chain of command; Care for the safety, professional, personal and spiritual well-being of our people; Show respect toward all people without regard to race, religion, or gender; Treat each individual with human dignity; Be committed to positive change and constant improvement; Exhibit the highest degree of moral character, technical excellence, quality and competence in what we have been trained to do. The day-to-day duty of every Navy man and woman is to work together as a team to improve the quality of our work, our people and ourselves.

USN values.
www.mod.uk...


These are the values they live by, what you plan would betray that.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Remember this number Roy and Maximus

Originally posted by Ezekial

Amen to that my friend. A few nukes in their 'holy' places should give them the message. Fight terror with terror.

You begin with a religious statement, which would indicate you to be a christian, you know the religion of Peace, of turning the other cheak , of loving thy neighbour....... do you see the problem with that ?

You advocate Dropping Nukes on holy sites (= extremism, and fanatism). A muslim terrorist thinks in just the same way.

By posting that last sentance You admit you are terrorist yourself, do you realise this ?



Think about this, does your attitude help solving this problem ? NO it will only make it grow.

Also, at the risk of a shameles plug... you might notice this little blue button that says "way above"... don't be shy lol. (I know how incredibly uncouthe that is, but dangit I want one of those little badges some day!)

You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

I think you deserve it, if I could vote for you more than once I would.
You have made some excellent responses to this thread. Keep writing posts like these and I'm sure you will be getting your little badge soon.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I read your post carefully, even though I was confident that I already understood it at only a glance. I gave it the benefit of the doubt though because you are a serviceman and not just some whacko shouting peace at any price.

Umm...I aint a service man , I am a cadet, sorry if I gave the wrong impression..I want to be one but frankly dont have the grades to do so. I failed the test.

Look as I may and look as I might though, nothing there seemed to indicate to me that contradicted my understanding of what is expected of our men.
I was a US Marine, I understand the core values, the leadership traits and principles, I get it I do. I don't just see the words, or even the conduct which they demand. I understsand the reasons behind them. The values we expect of our troops are designed to instill the necessary level of loyalty to one another. These are men who must live, fight, and god forbid, die together. They must abide by values which put their trust in one another beyond question. Not only that, but a nation depends on them to bare arms and incredible power in their best interest, and their honor and loyalty to the nation must be beyond question as well.
Nothing in those values is implies or intends that our men should pull any punches or ever stop short of any tactic which might serve to protect their nation from the enemy.

With respect, there are laws.
We cant commit the kind of actions suggested frankly its moraly and ethically and legally wrong.
THAT is one of the values our service men hold dear.

This is not to say explicitly that bombing holy sites, using indiscriminate weapons among civilians, or anything else is necessary. What I do intend to say however is that no tactic which may succeed is forbidden by the values held up by our military.

I am afriad there is..

Respect for Others: to treat others with decency at all times

British armed forces, last listed core value.

I prefer cleverness to brute force. When I hear about some grunt who has come up with a sound way to take it to those barbarian sons of a motherless goat without blowing the crap out of innocent bystanders, I love it (and more often than not I laugh my butt off). One of the greatest examples is the AK Monkey Pumper Smackdown
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes THAT is a great strategy , I agree.

But you know what? IF it just so happened at some point that we had to be a bit impolite, maybe even enlarge the war to hit them where it really hurt, then I'd have no problem with that, especially as far as the Marine Corps values I was taught to abide by are concerned. Never surrender while you have the means to resist. Hit them anyway that might work.

Yes but servicemen , or atleats the ones I've met and served under (I am a cadet) say they dont hit civilian targets.
Once we do so, we simpy prove something, we are as bad as them.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Umm...I aint a service man , I am a cadet, sorry if I gave the wrong impression..I want to be one but frankly dont have the grades to do so. I failed the test.

Sorry to hear that. I hope you haven't abandoned all hope though. You'd be amazed how much a person can overcome if he wants it bad enough. (believe me, I had to lose well over 50 pounds before the USMC would even allow me to go to boot.)
I aint as dumb as I look, so if you ever need a little hand in some subject which I'm handy with, feel free to drop me a U2U and if I can explain it at all I'll try.

With respect, there are laws.
We cant commit the kind of actions suggested frankly its moraly and ethically and legally wrong.
THAT is one of the values our service men hold dear.

I would say that depends on two things. Number 1, which specific actions we are considering, and 2, the point of view we take regarding the actions of a society. In WWII when destroying Germany's means to resist necessarily included air raids which were bound to have high levels of collateral damage, the ethical problems of harming civilians were outweighed by the need to win, as well as the fact that those civilians were subjects of a government with which we were at war. Therefore I would argue that where an attack against radical islam or against governments which promote terrorism is bound to impact others as well, morality must be weighed against the probable damage that will be done to the enemy, and the extent to which the affected people can be considered innocent must be gauged as well. Under the right circumstances, certain unpleasant tactics may be acceptable.

Respect for Others: to treat others with decency at all times

Shooting people is indecent by its very nature. If we apply the values too broadly we prohibit war entirely. As I said, the values are intended to create a force which can be trusted by the citizenry, and wherein the members can trust one another. The application to the enemy is considerably less stringent, if not entirely non-existant.

they dont hit civilian targets.
Once we do so, we simpy prove something, we are as bad as them.

But what constitutes a civilian target when the enemy command structure is religious rather than political? One could hardly argue that the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, or even the white house were civilian targets if America were being attacked. The infrastructure of American military policy would be a legitimate target.
The targeting of religious leaders, mosques, charity organizations, etc etc which play a roll in the organization, control, support, whatever of terrorist groups are legitimate targets in my view.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Sorry to hear that. I hope you haven't abandoned all hope though.

Thanks, I havent, but I really done bad in the maths and thats what cost me it..

You'd be amazed how much a person can overcome if he wants it bad enough. (believe me, I had to lose well over 50 pounds before the USMC would even allow me to go to boot.)
I aint as dumb as I look, so if you ever need a little hand in some subject which I'm handy with, feel free to drop me a U2U and if I can explain it at all I'll try.

Thanks, gd to hear from someone thats really motivated.

I would say that depends on two things. Number 1, which specific actions we are considering, and 2, the point of view we take regarding the actions of a society. In WWII when destroying Germany's means to resist necessarily included air raids which were bound to have high levels of collateral damage, the ethical problems of harming civilians were outweighed by the need to win, as well as the fact that those civilians were subjects of a government with which we were at war. Therefore I would argue that where an attack against radical islam or against governments which promote terrorism is bound to impact others as well, morality must be weighed against the probable damage that will be done to the enemy, and the extent to which the affected people can be considered innocent must be gauged as well. Under the right circumstances, certain unpleasant tactics may be acceptable.

With respect, this is not the 1940's.
We dont recommit dresdun now adays , thankfully.
Now I agree hitting government targets, but civilian ones I do not agree with.
I do agree that some unpleasant acts do have to be commited, but we cant allow ourselves to think we can do anything and use that exscuse.

Shooting people is indecent by its very nature. If we apply the values too broadly we prohibit war entirely. As I said, the values are intended to create a force which can be trusted by the citizenry, and wherein the members can trust one another. The application to the enemy is considerably less stringent, if not entirely non-existant.

Ah but shooting a person who is shooting back at you is self defence, you are defending your self and everyone around you.
I do see where you are comeing from though.

But what constitutes a civilian target when the enemy command structure is religious rather than political? One could hardly argue that the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, or even the white house were civilian targets if America were being attacked. The infrastructure of American military policy would be a legitimate target.

Good point, what is a "civilian"?

A citizen not part of the state through participation in the military or police force

That ^ is one definition.

The targeting of religious leaders, mosques, charity organizations, etc etc which play a roll in the organization, control, support, whatever of terrorist groups are legitimate targets in my view.

Yes if you support a group that funds terrorism, you are no longer considered a "Civilain" in my opinion.

Originally posted by devilwasp
With respect, this is not the 1940's.
We dont recommit dresdun now adays , thankfully.

I would argue that Operation Thunderclap was necessary. It was ugly and unpleasant business which involved the strafing of civilian automobilies fleeing Dresden as well as the near total destruction of an entire city with incendiary weapons, and as such was certainly not the sort of operation that should be carried out willy-nilly, but the fact is that the civilian infrustructure being targeted was of military importance to continued German resistance.

The goal of the strategic bombing of Dresden and other cities in the East was to hinder the reallocation of troops and the retreat of German forces so that they could be destroyed in the most timely and efficient manner. The roads and railways of Dreden, indeed the city itself, were a military assett to the Nazis and had to be eliminated to bring the war to a close as soon as possible. The allies could ill afford to have the Germans mount a defense such as the Russians did at Stalingrad and perhaps turn the tide on the Eastern front (unlikely but not impossible as that was).

Because there is essentially no front or rear in a counter-insurgency, such tactics are not relevant to the war in Iraq, but that's not to say they would be out of the question if they were indeed relevant and necessary.

Now I agree hitting government targets, but civilian ones I do not agree with.

And this goes right to the heart of the problem. The enemy is governed not by national politics but by religious politics. Organizations that would normally be considered civilian are in fact governmental and military in the case of this foe.

Ah but shooting a person who is shooting back at you is self defence, you are defending your self and everyone around you.
I do see where you are comeing from though.

Just to elaborate. Suppose that your tank company were launching a raid behind enemy lines, and the target was an enemy fuel depot which was virtually undefended. Suppose in fact that they never got a shot off before you had set the entire thing ablaze. Would that be wrong? They weren't really armed- they were no threat to you directly, but they were enabling the rest of the enemy to fight, and so it is obviously proper to destroy them.

In the same way, I believe it is proper to bomb a mosque which supports a terrorist organization, or to call for artillery when under attack in an area which has a high civilian population. Those who are presumably harmless are in fact enabling enemy operations and no great concern for their safety is warranted.

Originally posted by devilwaspUmm...I aint a service man , I am a cadet, sorry if I gave the wrong impression..I want to be one but frankly dont have the grades to do so. I failed the test.

I am sorry to hear this m8, dont give up hope though, yuo can serve in other ways.

Originally posted by The VagabondAnd this goes right to the heart of the problem. The enemy is governed not by national politics but by religious politics. Organizations that would normally be considered civilian are in fact governmental and military in the case of this foe.

I would consider this an accurate and fair statement.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I would argue that Operation Thunderclap was necessary. It was ugly and unpleasant business which involved the strafing of civilian automobilies fleeing Dresden as well as the near total destruction of an entire city with incendiary weapons, and as such was certainly not the sort of operation that should be carried out willy-nilly, but the fact is that the civilian infrustructure being targeted was of military importance to continued German resistance.

That is a good point,
But the fact was , we targeted civilians just trying to live.

The goal of the strategic bombing of Dresden and other cities in the East was to hinder the reallocation of troops and the retreat of German forces so that they could be destroyed in the most timely and efficient manner. The roads and railways of Dreden, indeed the city itself, were a military assett to the Nazis and had to be eliminated to bring the war to a close as soon as possible. The allies could ill afford to have the Germans mount a defense such as the Russians did at Stalingrad and perhaps turn the tide on the Eastern front (unlikely but not impossible as that was).

Yes it was a military assent but I still dont think we should have done it.

Because there is essentially no front or rear in a counter-insurgency, such tactics are not relevant to the war in Iraq, but that's not to say they would be out of the question if they were indeed relevant and necessary.

Good point, but there is a line between necessary + effective tacits and imoral tactics.

And this goes right to the heart of the problem. The enemy is governed not by national politics but by religious politics. Organizations that would normally be considered civilian are in fact governmental and military in the case of this foe.

Good point, That is a situation which I would support hitting "civilian" targets.

Just to elaborate. Suppose that your tank company were launching a raid behind enemy lines, and the target was an enemy fuel depot which was virtually undefended. Suppose in fact that they never got a shot off before you had set the entire thing ablaze. Would that be wrong? They weren't really armed- they were no threat to you directly, but they were enabling the rest of the enemy to fight, and so it is obviously proper to destroy them.

Ah but for that to happen that would mean they are "the enemy" , meaning they had already attacked your fellow men and women somewhere else, so technically your defending your fellow servicemen somewhere else where these supplies are being used against them.

In the same way, I believe it is proper to bomb a mosque which supports a terrorist organization, or to call for artillery when under attack in an area which has a high civilian population. Those who are presumably harmless are in fact enabling enemy operations and no great concern for their safety is warranted.

IMO, I think the mosque might be justifiable.
I dont support the second one.
Not for one second.

Originally posted by edsinger
I am sorry to hear this m8, dont give up hope though, yuo can serve in other ways.

I havent, but it was a nasty blow..


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]