Will938 wrote: The Europeans have their own political union, half the reason we became so involved globally was to protect them until they could establish such a network.
But no military forces to speak of. We certainly can't count on them on providing security for us, or even for being able to defend themselves.
Will938 wrote: Those who hold these beliefs will be dead in 100 years, and it will be their children's children in charge.
Yes. Children who have been taught to carry on the jihad in madrassas. Children who have been taught that Jews are monkeys and pigs.
Will938 wrote: The question no one can answer is how we're supposed to kill an idea. You can't until you kill everyone who believes it...unfortunately for us part of the idea is that we're evil and want to spread our culture onto them.
I think the main part of their idea is that we are evil and that they should spread their culture onto us.
Just look at what Islamic advocacy groups are doing in Europe right now, pushing for special rights for Muslims (to not be offended by what are common practices among non-Muslims) and advocating for matters involving Muslims to be settled under Sharia Law instead of the laws and courts of the country they are living in.
Will938 wrote: They aren't born with these ideas, its taught. Just like racism 50 years ago, might not be gone but it certainly is held only by a very small minority. And it only gets smaller.
The question might be how long can they keep the hate alive. But another question, just as important, is how much of our culture should we give up in attempts to appease them? Should we give up free speech? Artistic expression? Pork? What? And what if we give these things up and they STILL want to hate us and kill/conquor us?
Maybe if we all converted to Islam they might call off the jihad. Is that what we should do? And what do we do later on when some other group of violent lunatics starts attacking us in the name of some other religion?
Will938 wrote: I've already stated that the border recon could never be 100%, but it actually does something about our problem.
We agree on this. It solves part of the problem but not all.
Will938 wrote: As for them marshalling their strength, exactly what have they lost that prevents them from attacking here?
Designing, planning, and executing terror ops, especially large scale ones, is more difficult because they have to hide their activities more thoroughly. A large scale attack involves many people, and lots of planning and money. With phone lines being tapped as much as possible, and a willingness to go after the terrorists wherever they might be (that we know of), they have to keep their heads down.
No attacks since 9/11 is no accident.
Will938 wrote: What prevents them, right now, from bringing in several individuals to attack some mall in the middle of nowhere and terrifying us again? Fighting them over there certainly doesn't do it, they aren't short on manpower, money, or a good supply of Soviet weapons. Police work in the answer why they've been unsuccessful, because they HAVE tried to come back here back here and make attempts.
"Police work?" Do you mean "infringements" of the 2A? So you're agreeing with me that if anyone, felon, terrorist, LAC, insane person, could buy MP-5's out of vending machines and carry them anywhere, including on board airliners, no questions asked, it would be easier for terrorists to operate than it is now.
But I think the real answer is "all of the above." Police work and aggressive, sometimes pre-emptive tactics are all part of it.
What you're doing is taking what has been a successful strategy (in that it has prevented new attacks) and cherry picking parts of it that you don't like and asserting that they must not be having any effect.
Will938 wrote: Well, I can point out instances where we have been attacked, unsuccessfully. Usually by domestic terrorists, sometimes not. Point being that intel and upstanding citizens have foiled all of them, not the military. Fighting them over there might hinder their structure, but it only emboldens their beliefs with everyone...also we must recognize that there are parts of the organization we can't touch due to their location. Why would I give credit to our policies, that's a dangeorus proposition. If we did that then we assume we're doing the right thing, even if it is wrong. It also doesn't give any solid evidence as to why.
Well, you might give credit to our policies because there is at least a correlation between our policies and no attacks. The scientific method strives to find the simplest model that describes the data and allows for predictions. In this case, the simplest model is that the policies have, in their aggregate, prevented new attacks. Any other model, such as stipulating that this or that policy could be changed has a higher burden of proof of effectiveness because it necessarily involves speculation.
I can remember that right after 9/11, nearly everyone thought we would be attacked again in a few months. Did you? I did. It seemed to me that with all of the possible ways we could be attacked, that at least one of them could be pulled off.
But for some strange reason, we weren't. I wonder if any of President Bush's policies had anything to do with it?
frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Let's agree that the idea of companies hiring Blackwater or "The People's Liberation Army Private Security Department" to provide security on the high seas is ludicrous, as is companies negotiating with foreign governments, or thinking wishfully that a bunch of lawyers, investment bankers, and insurance companies could provide such security.
In addition, before they take us on, our enemies will want to weaken us by weakening our economy. In fact, it is essential that they do so. They might try to do that by intimidating or even overwhelming countries that are important trading partners to us. These countries may be important to us and our economy, but also much smaller and weaker than us (hence easier targets). If we are hunkered down behind our borders, our enemies will have a free hand to do this.
Now some might say, "Why do we have to do it? How does Nevis-St. Kitts get by without being a global superpower with a big Navy and Air Force, and missiles, and all that?"
The answer is that Nevis-St. Kitts is stuck with being who and what they are. All they can do is hope that the powerful countries can maintain a certain order in the world that they can piggyback on. And if the big countries fail at that task, all they can do is hide out on their little islands and hope that no one notices they are there.
But we are not Nevis-St. Kitts. We are among a very small group of countries who have made the decision to take our destiny into our own hands, and who are large enough and powerful enough to make a credible effort at it. In this respect, we as a country share a certain philosophy with we as individual gun owners and CHLers. We are not willing to simply hope that some other country or countries (or hired help such as the police) take care of us. We have decided to take care of ourselves, for better or worse.
Many of us have different opinions as to how to best go about this. Some believe we should pull back to our borders and coasts. (And don't you guys forget about Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and all those Pacific Islands that we own and whose inhabitants are American citizens. Your border security/defense plans have to allow for their protection too.) Others believe that we should maintain a global presence and pursue our enemies, and the enemies of civilization itself, wherever they might try to set up or hide.
Different opinions, different philosophies.
That's why we have elections.
Will938 wrote: I don't see why the idea of private security on the high seas is ludacris. It happens all the time all over the world.
Example please. I'm especially interested in who would step forward to provide security for ships transiting The Straits of Hormuz. Whoever it is, they'd better have a heck of a Navy, a heck of an Air Force, and one whale of a logistics capability to keep all that hardware running, and the people involved eating and drinking. And they would also need an ability to protect that supply line stretching between wherever their base might be and wherever their forces are operating.
Will938 wrote: If I recall Shell Oil has a private army protecting it in Africa, tanks and all.
I think Shell hired some of the local government boys, who since then have been accused of wanton rape and slaughter. And I think this is all happening on dry land.
Will938 wrote: I still support the idea of the US cruising the seas and escorting merchants, but if they want to hire protection then I don't see the problem. IIRC Blackwater still has to operate under US law concerning who they contract with.
Not if they move their corporate HQ to China or Venezualea or some place like that.
Will938 wrote: Point out any group today working outside the realm of the foreign nation's laws capable of taking down one of our major trade partners. And how are they going to destroy us once they weaken our economy? Only governments are capable of doing this to us today.
Look at what the terror attacks on Spain did. They transformed a ally that had several thousand troops in Iraq into an essentially neutral country with zero troops in Iraq.
Once they weaken our economy over a period of time,we will no longer be able to afford the best and most modern military equipment and forces to successfully defend ourselves. So we won't have them. An enemy with a stronger economy could have 3 or 4 times as much stuff, and better stuff, than we have.
And yes, it would probably be an enemy government at that point.
Will938 wrote: And no, I didn't forget about Alaska or Hawaii, though admittedly I didn't consider our territories. Alaska particularly wouldn't be suited for that kind of coverage due to its huge area and small concentrations of people. It doesn't have but a few targets of interest and it isn't directly connected to the mainland so it isn't important to look after its borders as we would the continental US. No, they'd be better served by customs and border patrol with limited UAV coverage. As for Hawaii, it's so small that a huge increase in the Coast Guard is unnecessary, every other service is neglegable on the overall cost.
Alaska has huge oil reserves and the Alaska Pipeline. Obvious strategic targets. The pipeline is around 800+ miles long.
The guard force isn't only sized according to the size of the place being guarded. It must also be sized to withstand any potential attack at least until relief forces can be brought in from somewhere else.
This is the problem with a static defense. It has to be strong everywhere. The enemy can mass their forces because they only have to be strong at the point of attack.
But in real life it would never work out that way. A determined enemy would knock off all of the smaller and weaker countries first. Maybe some by political means, exploiting rot from within. Some could be brought down in coups or by civil wars. The method would simply be adapted to the terraine. (We are hunkered down behind our borders, remember, and not helping any of these countries. So they are on their own.) Then the enemy would use those countries' economies to wage economic war on us to greatly weaken our economy. Then when the balance of forces were overwhelmong in their favor, they would "make us an offer we couldn't refuse."
Will938 wrote: It all boils down to a few questions for me, all concerning 2008:
- What is the best way to stop real threats against us?
Opinions vary.
Will938 wrote: - With an unprotected border, how does the GWOT stop these threats from attacking?
The borders must be secured. But secured ot not, the GWOT makes them keep their heads down. No attacks since 9/11 cannot be dismissed as an accident.
Will938 wrote: - Once the border is protected, what does the GWOT net us, what do we lose by continuing it?
See above.
Will938 wrote: - What do we lose if we discontinue the GWOT?
The terrorists get a free hand to set up shop in some "friendly" other country and build/train their forces. Other countries would more easily agree to harbor them since they would not be concerned that we would come after them in turn.
This was the deal bin Laden had with Afganistan through the 90's. Both the Taliban and bin Laden were surprised that we went after them and drove them out. They thought that the most we would do was what Clinton did on the multiple occassions when we a were attacked during the 90's - lob a few cruise missiles over there and make an angry speech or two.
bin Laden might be hiding out in Pakistan now, but he is doing it without official government support. And he spends a lot of his time looking over his shoulder and listening for that faint whistling sound, hoping it doesn't get louder and louder.
Will938 wrote: - What do we gain/lose by attacking countries before any imminent threat has manifested?
Depends on the country and the situation.