No

Arsy

Gotta disagree Biefstukfriet.  In my lifetime we are become a nation of weaklings.

the 230,000 Bush sent to Kuwait and Saudi in 1991 represented the last gasp of the Cold War Military.  This was a military with hunreds of thousands of troops in active combat divisions, and hundreds of thousands of combat troops in National Guard, "weekend warrior" roles ready to call up for regular service, and hundreds of thousands of combat troops in a Reserve that could be activated.

This is no longer true.  Since the Cold War ended we have a new military with a regular army about half the size.  There are no combatants in the National Guard.  All the National Guard are support troops, MPs and mechanics and missle techs.  The combatants in the Reserve are applied piecemeal into the regular units we have left.

what makes this politically significant is that for the 9 years we have been fighting neither party sees fit to challenge it.  You read that some of our combat units have been serving three or four one-year tours of combat and people shrug.  At a time when we have 10% unemployment and factories are closing, our Army and Marines are using the same guys over and over, and we read complaints that equipment isn't getting to the front lines fast enough.   We hear that we're too badly outnumbered in Afghanistan and this doesn't suggest a return to the 1991 military.

The notion that the size of the US military should be defined by the mission is just shouted down.  It is a fringe idea.  the military is already too darn huge, we're told, and we just have to redefine our expectations to match our broken, worn out military.

Politically this means Russia can do what it likes, China can do what it likes, Iran can do what it likes, Pakistan can do what it likes.  That is not rhetoric.  Russia wants to invade Georgia with 40,000 troops? There is nothing we will do about it, we're overextended.  Iran is building a bomb?  There's nothing we will do about it, we're overextended.  Afghanistan is going to the Taliban? We'll keep fighting for a while, but we have to reduce the violence and then fuzzy-wuzzy will love us.  The striped pants KNOW he can't do it.  That's why the State Dept stopped calling the Taliban "terrorists" in the latest state dept report. That's why Obama wants Karzai to find "moderate" Taliban who we can "negotiate" with.

I think invading a country to get the terms of our withdrawal is fucking insane.  But I am a far-right wacko who doesn't understand that the Taliban are really like us once we see their point of view, and they just want a deal.  They must just want a deal.  The notion that they want to keep fighting a 20 year civil war until everybody in their country is either obedient or dead, is just far-right wacko propaganda that gets in the way of "seeing reality".  Reality is we invaded a country and now we want a deal to go home. That is sane. Bombing the shit out of everything that shoots at us til THEY give up, is far right wing wacko craziness.

There is buzz that China built a missle that can destroy a carrier in one shot.  This is called a "game-changer".  But our carriers have always been vulnerable.  Between May and August 1945 the Japanese destroyed something like 600 US navy ships including some carriers with kamikazes.  We never pretended a swarm of missles or a crafty sub couldn't take out a Nimitz-class carrier.  So what? We could build more than just about anybody, and we'd bomb harder than anybody, and so anybody overtly smiting us by sinking one carrier was due to get wrecked.  Destroying carriers wasn't going to stop us, just slow us down.

But that's the "gamechanger": what we have afloat now, is IT.  Just like Petraeus has to crack the Taliban with what he has now.  Because we would rather lose a war than invest what it takes to win.  And that attitude has to be applied to ALL our committments, including NATO.  If somebody isn't daunted by the American forces in place to defend you RIGHT NOW, you're fucked.  You will not get more.  If we get struck by suprise there will be a real question whether we can afford to fight back.  The answer will be: no.  We need bigger schools and more womens sports and healthy alternatives to McDonalds, and we need to pay bills for homeowners who can't find jobs at the right level of income.

i approve!

  should we show up @ 430?

>>"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."<<

He really said that? Then why does he raise money for Hamas?  They took Israelis hostsage to demand the release of a Muslim "warrior" who stormed an unarmed beach and brained a father of 4 in front of his kids with a rock, because he was a Jew.  They fire rockets into cities in the hopes it kills some Jew somewhere.  Why do I only hear about the beautiful myth of Islamic chivalry when I'm supposed to feel ashamed?  Why isn't he refusing to support Hamas because it won't fight Islamicly?

Do you think we're stupid? We must have done something to make you think we're stupid.

Please let me know what percentage of Israel is not a military target. Surely some percentage of Israel is civilian and cannot be killed by Muslims waging an Islamic war.  What is it? 1%? 2%?  That way we know what percent will not be slaughtered if the Palestinians win.

  ARSY!!!!

nemeara

nah, you can just debate who was the REAL Stig, like debating whether Connery was the best Bond

no

wc

and its a farmville alert, so I see it every hour

nay

metrex

http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/POP/MP6617.jpg