Yes, there are some things we see differently.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
One of those difference is in the appreciation of the "defense" - and - "intervention."
The AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) differs between "Self-Defense" and "Political Intervention."
- Japan attacked US Territory - the Pacific Fleet. An act of war.
- Germany declared war on the United States.
- Korea was a Post-WWII Repatriation Effort to Independence but under Occupation and Administration by LTG JR Hodge, US Army.
Everything after the Korean War was a US Intervention, with the exception of the Liberation of Kuwait.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Yes, there where the "Whiz Kids" and their follows. There was a very strong anti-communist period.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Obviously, this is true. But there are also diplomatic and 4GW (asymmetric warfare techniques).
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Yes, that is hard to explain. But this dates back to French colonization and the origins of the "Domino Theory." Ho Chi Mihn was my father's ally before I got there (Anti-Japanese Occupation Insurgency).
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
I am not so sure that you should include Iraq or Afghanistan. And the Palestinian issue has now dragged-on for half a century.
Libya is clearly a mistake. And Yemen is a situation that remain to be seen. Syria is a nation that we should be very careful in how we proceed.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Clearly, the US is a military hegemony (Persuasive in Peace - & - Invincible in War). There are many that would agree that the AUMF should be a last result.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Yes, "spending of billions to protect trillions" is an excellent slogan. You should send it to the White House. I'm sure they will use it.
But on a serious note, the expenditures lost over that military adventure will never be recovered. It it is anything but assured that we (the US) will recover any of our investment. Plus, any dollar we lost, directly or indirectly, at a result of Iraq will cost us twice as much. The refit of the military, the dollars sacrificed to upgrade Iraqi infrastructure at the expense of the US infrastructure, and the future costs of the DOS Effort are but a few items we should consider. Yet, if you were here, listening to the discussion of the debt and the unemployment rate, you would no doubt not that --- certainly the US is no better off. One can argue that neither is Iraq or Afghanistan. One needs only look at the news.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. Not every choice the US make is wrong. But the US position is, by no means, a good bet.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Yes, that is always a risk. That is why it is imperative that we evaluate the alternatives. The US National Security Decision Making Process (NSDMP) must balance the "inductive (evidence-based) analytical reasoning --- against deductive (hypothesis-based and evidence tested) reasoning.[1]"
We did not do that in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan. Congress did not tell the American Public that it would take more than a decade in either place, or that at the end of the decade, the outcome would be still in question.
[1]Cooper, Jeffrey R. (2008). The CIA's Program for Improving Intelligence Analysis - "Curing Analytic Pathologies" (Kindle Locations 72-73). MacMay. Kindle Edition.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
That is because the US is no longer smart enough or strong enough to address more than one major theater at a time. This is one of the first symptoms of a power in decline.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
I was in Germany at the time. The US had intercepted the telecommunication traffic between Libya and their assets in Berlin. There was no question. They were caught red-handed.
Now, was it an appropriate response? There are always unintended and unpredictable consequences to such actions. One could make a similar argument for non-action in the aftermath of the 1983 Marine Barracks event in Lebanon.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
NO! You misunderstand me. I do think that many people believe that the government does know more than the public. And in many cases the government does. But I also think that the American Public places way too much confidence in the government to be honest. It was clearly a case of depraved indifference that the US Government claims to the status of Iraqi WMD, (where and how much) when in fact that was blatantly untrue. Politicians are natural liars. They do it without even thinking. The bend the truth to fit their agenda. And they anted to go to war, so they molded the facts to fit that agenda. Their was no honestly or integrity involved.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
There is a reality and their is non-reality.
Can you honestly say that the US is better-off?
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Yes, there is a huge difference between "crime prevention" and "preemptive military strikes." And "conventional war" is the least successful of the options.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
May be the invasion of Afghanistan, the home of al-Qaeda, was a proper move. But we should have devoted all our resources and capacities to that task; cleaned it up fast, and withdrawn. One task at a time and executed with speed and agility; not dragged-out for a decade.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Agreed.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
These are not new technologies, but adaptions of an existing technologies and improvements. The same as automobiles improved over time.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
The top 10 you display are all IT adaptations, with the exception of two.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Growth in comparison of previous years. Most of this does not energize the economy, but it does help. Remember, the wealth in America is held by the very top of society. If makes no difference to an average American, like myself, who is unemployed.
[INDENT][QUOTE=Double Edge;820968] There seem to be lots of top 10 lists around for this depending on the discipline, here's one from the Telegraph
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
That is a niche market. Yes it makes an important contribution, but not everyone works in the defense industry.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
That, again, is an evolution of an old technology. It is not a new technology. It is like an automobile that incorporates newer technologies over time. UAV (as we call it today), is four decades old.
REFERENCE: Brief history of UAVs
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Yes, and that has been helpful. Agreed.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
I did, and may be was a little more critical.
Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Agreed.
MostRespectfully,
R
Leave a comment: