 |
|
| Hobby Forum Index » Woodworking » OT: Frontline / "A Counter-insurgency War?"... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tom Watson... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:33:30 -0700 (PDT), informer
<BorgNewbie at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
We refer all the counter stuff to Robotoy.
The hamster and duct tape stuff goes to Jackstein.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| charlieb... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
HeyBub wrote:
SNIP
Quote: As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.
Please define "success", and please clarify to which of "Bush's war"
you are referring since he started two, one "pre-emptive" (Iraq)
and one not.
charlile b |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DGDevin... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
HeyBub wrote:
Quote: As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.
Really? How many more years do you figure it would have taken him to get
Bin Laden if not for the Presidential term limit? That was the reason for
going into Afghanistan, wasn't it, to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Pity they
let him escape from Tora Bora like that, oh well. Or maybe that was all
part of the plan, or something. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| charlieb... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Swingman wrote:
Quote:
Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
peril of your eventual demise.
You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
"Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.
Quote: How soon we fucking forget ...
Again, perhaps unintentionally, you make my point.
It's not that we fucking forget, it's that we fucking
don't learn the lessons of history. It's not who "wins"
a war that reduces the likelyhood of another. It's how
the post war is handled that's a good predictor of
the duration of peace afterwards. The Versaille Treaty
almost insured that Europe would have another major
and more devistating war before the century was even
half over.
I submit that the Marshall Plan did more to prevent
another world war than did SAC, and the economic
benefits of the Marshal Plan resulted in more peace
and prosperity.
But my original question has not been answered.
Please define "success" in the context of the original
statement HeyBub made. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike Marlow... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"charlieb" <charlieb at (no spam) accesscom.com> wrote in message
news:4AD537C6.795F at (no spam) accesscom.com...
Quote: Swingman wrote:
Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
peril of your eventual demise.
You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
"Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.
Double bullshit Charlie. The reason these fanatics felt comfortable
executing their plan was that we had lost the image of invincibility. We
got our asses kicked by the war in Viet Nam, and had become a nation of
don't ask, don't tell. The feminization of our country and our culture was
visible world wide. We were an easy target because we no longer represented
a threat of retaliation. Or a threat of "don't mess with us". And... look
how we have proven that to be true. Bin Ladin headed off to Pakistan
because he knew he could. We wouldn't pursue him. He toys with us (or his
followers), because they know they can. He knew exactly how to play us
because we trained him. And... funded him. But what he was able to observe
was that we were losing our "might is right" posture, and embracing
everything that feels good, and in the end stands for nothing.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE at (no spam) windstream.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| charlieb... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Do you actually believe that someone who intentionally
flys a plane in to a tall office building full of people is
at all concerned about what an "invincable" was going to
do to them in retaliation?
If fear of retaliation deters what we're facing now, let's
look at Isreal's response to the '72 Munich Olympics
Terrorist Massacre. Mossad hunted down and killed
every one directly involved - and that took 20 years.
Is Isreal safer today than they were in 1972?
Where to begin with the rest of your response to the
original question - what is your definition of "success"
in terms of either of the two current wars we're in?
Viet Nam was the result of fear of "communism" taking
precidents over history and facts. We saw the North
South conflict as a surrogate war between "communism"
and "the free world", rather than what it was - a civil
war between nationalists. The country was supposed
to have a free and democratic election in 1954 and
had that election been held, historians have agreed
that Ho Chi Mihn would have been elected president
of the reunited Viet Nam. And if that happened, France
would lose their holdings in the south - and they weren't
ready to do that. So there was no election and the
civil war began.
The driving motivation here, and in other conflicts
we've engage in, was nationalism. The Viet Namese
had driven out every "invincible power that attempted to
colonialize them - including China AND Japan, as
well as the French. OK - so the French don't produce
much of an army - but they tried to keep the south
of Viet Nam by force anyway - and also were eventually
forced to leave.
As for "the feminization of our country and our culture"
you do realize that half or so of the world's population
are females?
And "don't ask, don't tell" - the greatest conquering
army in history - Alexander's army, had a significant
number of homosexual warriors and Alexander was
probably at least bisexual if not homosexual.
In a world of established nations Might Makes Right
was true. The world has changed, and if we don't
deal with the world as it is then we better get better
at defining "success" before we we commit our
sons AND daughters, and our treasures to throwing
our weight around, thumping our chest and growling
"don't mess with us!". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod & BJ Jacobson... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"charlieb" <charlieb at (no spam) accesscom.com> wrote in message
news:4AD537C6.795F at (no spam) accesscom.com...
Quote: You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
"Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.
One can not prevent any and all terrorist acts, as a absolute criteria of
success that ideal is pretty meaningless...Security or prevention will
indeed diminish those opportunities. As a aside simply locking the pilots
door would have specifically prevented 9/11 and that both private and public
individuals failed to anticipate such a obvious security breach bodes poorly
for prevention of all other creative future attacks.
I am however a bit curious as to when "effective use of that which evolved
after muscles" has ever actually worked, at least without the brawn or the
threat thereof?
It is interesting to note that following our help with the overthrow of the
Soviets in Afghanistan we backed off and meddled not .....But in the 90's we
were however the worlds largest supplier of foreign aid (foodstuffs etc.) to
Afghanistan......In response to our largess they provided safe haven to al
Queda..... and in fact the Taliban could have avoided our overthrow if they
simply had turned Osama over to us.
Quote: Again, perhaps unintentionally, you make my point.
It's not that we fucking forget, it's that we fucking
don't learn the lessons of history. It's not who "wins"
a war that reduces the likelyhood of another. It's how
the post war is handled that's a good predictor of
the duration of peace afterwards. The Versaille Treaty
almost insured that Europe would have another major
and more devistating war before the century was even
half over.
It may as well be worthy of note that if the WW1 treaty had been enforced
WW2 would not have happened either.....The early appeasement of Germany and
the Allies desire to avoid war at nearly any cost allowed the means. That
the West effectively disarmed did nothing to stop either Germany or Japans
imperialist desires.
Quote: I submit that the Marshall Plan did more to prevent
another world war than did SAC, and the economic
benefits of the Marshal Plan resulted in more peace
and prosperity.
As much as I'd largely agree I'd still suggest the Marshal plan without the
utter destruction of the AXIS powers would not have worked.
Rod |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris Friesen... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 10/14/2009 04:43 PM, Rod & BJ Jacobson wrote:
Quote: As a aside simply locking the pilots
door would have specifically prevented 9/11 and that both private and public
individuals failed to anticipate such a obvious security breach bodes poorly
for prevention of all other creative future attacks.
Up until 9/11, the normal course of action was to fly to where the
hijacker wanted to go, and then stall on the ground to give time to put
together an assault on the aircraft. There was little to be risked by
letting the hijacker into the cockpit, and the alternative was them
shooting the other passengers (aka hostages) one by one.
After 9/11 the game is different. When the hijacker might want to turn
the whole plane into a flying bomb, the other passengers have nothing to
lose by attacking the hijackers, and the pilot has nothing to gain by
letting them into the cockpit. Basically, the terrorists ruined
everything for "normal" hijackers.
Chris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| J. Clarke... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chris Friesen wrote:
Quote: On 10/14/2009 04:43 PM, Rod & BJ Jacobson wrote:
As a aside simply locking the pilots
door would have specifically prevented 9/11 and that both private
and public individuals failed to anticipate such a obvious security
breach bodes poorly for prevention of all other creative future
attacks.
Up until 9/11, the normal course of action was to fly to where the
hijacker wanted to go, and then stall on the ground to give time to
put together an assault on the aircraft. There was little to be
risked by letting the hijacker into the cockpit, and the alternative
was them shooting the other passengers (aka hostages) one by one.
After 9/11 the game is different. When the hijacker might want to
turn the whole plane into a flying bomb, the other passengers have
nothing to lose by attacking the hijackers, and the pilot has nothing
to gain by letting them into the cockpit. Basically, the terrorists
ruined everything for "normal" hijackers.
And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for much after
he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food service cart
land on him. Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skilled pilot
can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to lose by breaking
the airplane. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mark & Juanita... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
diggerop wrote:
Quote: "HeyBub" <heybub at (no spam) NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:68SdnUGE5_Rn4UrXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...
Scott Lurndal wrote:
I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in
the
Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your
opinion?
There's the empirical evidence. Of the 50-odd predominately Muslim
countries in the world, only two (Malaysia and Turkey) are democracies
(maybe Iraq). The rest are monarchies (Morocco), theocracies (Iran),
oligarchies (Egypt), thugocracies (Lybia), or out-and-out anarchies
(Sudan, Somalia).
Really? .......... How about:
Indonesia - the worlds largest muslim population (88% of 245 million) -
democracy
Marginally so. The Suartos were hardly champions of free and open
democracy. Even today, Indonesia is definitely neither tolerant nor
inclusive. Our church has a mission there. When living in Texas, we
called one of the Missionaries to be our pastor. After having one of our
board meetings with him one evening, he leaned back in his chair, smiled
and said, "you know, this is nice -- we just had a meeting here and
finished it and no one threw any bricks through the windows." Let me add
that our church body does not practice in-your-face evangelism. In
Indonesia, the default religion is the religion of peace and no open
evangelism is allowed. People who have been in car accidents there have
been declared guilty even when not really at fault because the judge has
determined, "if you weren't in our country, this accident wouldn't have
occurred".
Quote: Pakistan - the worlds second largest muslim population (97% of 165
million) - democracy
Your "empirical evidence" looks a little shaky to me.
Again, marginally democratic, most definitely not free to practice one's
faith unless it is as a member of the religion of peace. People in
Pakistan get killed when they aren't members of the religion of peace.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Douglas Johnson... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
Quote: And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for much after
he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food service cart
land on him. Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skilled pilot
can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to lose by breaking
the airplane.
Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for it:
http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf. Terrorist in a blender. Right
side, ceiling, left side, floor. Repeat as necessary.
I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high jacked again.
No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it has been long enough to
forget.
-- Doug |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim Daneliuk... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Douglas Johnson wrote:
Quote: "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for much after
he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food service cart
land on him. Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skilled pilot
can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to lose by breaking
the airplane.
Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for it:
http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf. Terrorist in a blender. Right
side, ceiling, left side, floor. Repeat as necessary.
I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high jacked again.
No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it has been long enough to
forget.
-- Doug
Which at current pace will be about an hour ...
The truth is that there is no simple solution to dealing with people
willing to die for a cause. Imagine a situation in which the bad guys
are slitting throats while you sit in the cockpit. It's an agonizing
situation for which there is no "good" choice - only bad and worse.
The only "answer" - if there is one - is to work on solving the root
cause problems: poverty, despair, denying access in the first place -
all things that the complacent West seems bent on ignoring. So long
as death is preferable to life, we will see horrors of the past revisited
regularly. This is not a problem of flying technique, it is first a problem
of conquering insanity - something humans haven't historically done
particularly well. The major despots of history - Mao, Hitler, Stalin,
Pol Pot, Castro, et al - all capitalized on human suffering. Unless and
until this is addressed, nothing much will change.
In the mean time, Western leaders are capitulating to the very forces of
evil that animate such behavior. Just recently, Turkey was lost:
http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2009/10/19/how_turkey_was_lost?page=full&comments=true
The American president waffles while Afghan lives are in the balance. The Iranian
thugocracy prevails with Western silence. The Russian bear flexes its muscles
while Western democracies run away in limp silence. Evil has always required
counterpoint - it is today, almost entirely absent. No amount of cockpit
technique can address these moral failings ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra at (no spam) tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robatoy... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 20, 9:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun... at (no spam) tundraware.com> wrote:
Quote: Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:15 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, evodawg <evod... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing off
the left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 +
years.
That explains a few things, eh?
Funny how it's the right that's always foaming at the mouth. I have yet
to see it on the left. If I did, I'd have the same negative response as
I do to Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly.
How convenient it is to be tone deaf. It's easy to come up with a list
of squealing lefties, any one of whom exceeds Rush/Beck/O'Reilly in
bile and volume. A small sampling:
Keith Obermeyer
Rachel Maddow
Bill Maher
Alec Baldwin
Arianna Huffington
Michael Moore
Whoopie Goldberg
Beyond just being fundamentally more obnoxious than anyone on the right,
all the above are prone to more than just exaggeration for effect (which
pretty much everyone on both sides practices), most of them are outright
liars. Good thing you can't hear them ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk tun... at (no spam) tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Now that you have shown your hardcore right-wing colours....was that
so hard? Don't you feel better now? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Larry Blanchard... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:15 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
Quote: On Oct 20, 2:28Â pm, evodawg <evod... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing off
the left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 +
years.
That explains a few things, eh?
Funny how it's the right that's always foaming at the mouth. I have yet
to see it on the left. If I did, I'd have the same negative response as
I do to Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Steve Turner... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Larry Blanchard wrote:
Quote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:15 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, evodawg <evod... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing off
the left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 +
years.
That explains a few things, eh?
Funny how it's the right that's always foaming at the mouth. I have yet
to see it on the left.
Apparently you're not reading this newsgroup. All you have to do is
mention anything remotely related to a "right wing" mentality and you
get an automatic onslaught of foam. It's pretty tiresome really.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:24 am
|
|