Malkinius
Posts: 1814
Joined: 1/9/2004
Status: offline
|
Greetings mikey....
I am going to try to say this in ways you will understand. I doubt it, but I will give it one attempt.
There are two methods of defense. The first, and worst, is reactionary. You react to an attack and try to stop it after it has happened. This means you have already been attacked and now you have to first do something in response to the attack and the damage you have taken and then stop whomever from continuing to attack you.
The second, and best, is deterrence. It is the old, "Yea, tho I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil because I am the meanest son of a bitch in the valley." This means you are not attacked because the potential attackers know what will happen to you if they do and they don't like it.
Through most of US history, our defense has been reactionary. We do something after we are attacked. There are a couple of exceptions and one of those we lost. This was true up through WWII. That was a reactionary war even if we were preparing for the probability we would be involved. It took until an actual attack on US soil and military forces for us to declare war. Then, as Admiral Yamamoto predicted, Japan lost. The reactionary defense ended with the defeat of Japan due to dropping two atomic bombs.
Yes, the atomic bomb has been one of the greatest forces for peace the world has ever known. Why? Because it is deterrence. Anyone attacking the US knows what will happen to them and they don't like the results it even if they think, as the Soviet Union and Mao did that they would survive it. Yes, that includes the insane leaders of countries such as North Korea. There is, however, one problem with the nuke option. It is not appropriate for every situation. Some jobs need a tack hammer, not a jackhammer.
Afghanistan was a reactionary defense of the US. We went in after the people who attacked and killed people on US soil and who said they would do it again. We also took out the government which was supporting them to keep it from happening again. We defended ourselves from future attacks by projecting our force and stopping further attacks. Yes, there have been other attacks on the US troops and people and even more attempts to do so that have failed. By going into Afghanistan we also did the meanest SOB in the valley thing to warn others what would happen if they tried it. This is why even the looney left has trouble vilifying our actions going into in Afghanistan.
You seem to think only reactionary defense is good so this was a good thing, right? Or is it that we can try to stop attacks after the attack has begun and do it here rather than at the source? If so, I will point a line from the opening of the movie "Patton". It is where George C. Scott is telling the troops that he doesn't want them to go out and die for their country. He wants them to go out and make the other poor sons of bitches die for their country. Personally, I like that idea. The more we do it the less happens to us and ours and the less need there is for anyone to die. It is called deterrence.
The first Gulf war against Iraq was in response to their military takeover of Kuwait, a country a fraction of their size who had not attacked them. You do remember that point, don't you? The US and a goodly number of other countries reversed that and stopped just short of removing Saddam Hussein. I won't argue whether we should or should not have done so at this point, that is for another time. Because Iraq had used poison gas and other generally forbidden weapons against its own people and during its fight with Iran, the countries who defeated Iraq wanted all of those weapons destroyed. Yes, remember that he did have and use those nasty Weapons of Mass Destruction that the rest of the world doesn't like and hasn't since WWI. He had them as of the first Gulf War according to people I know who were there on the ground and saw or helped destroy them.
I am pretty certain that you have conveniently forgotten all the things Hussein did to hide or look like he was hiding WMDs from the inspectors. Do you remember the chemical factory that had the, in English, "Baby Milk Factory" sign? I suppose you also forgot how he was paying the families of suicide bombers who attacked anyone he didn't like? That is a state supporting terrorism in my book. Was he trying to get nuclear weapons when we attacked? His main nuclear scientist said yes but that he was stonewalling it because he didn't want Hussein from having them. Did they ever find any WMDs? Actually, yes but only a very small amount. They did find a few artillery shells but no, no large stockpiles. I suppose you don't remember the rocket attacks on Israel or US bases either or any of the other things he did like illegal oil sales to get around the UN sanctions placed on him...and no, almost none of that money went to "the people". It went for more weapons and new palaces for him and his friends and family.
What was deterred by Bush 2 going into Iraq? It was not a reactionary defense to a large extent. What it deterred is support for terrorist attacks around the world and it drew many of those terrorists to Iraq. Where they died. Where by attacking Muslims, Mosques and holy sites the terrorists lost support of most of the Muslim world. They violated the laws of the Koran in the name of the Koran. In reality, in the name of a few leaders who wanted to take over power in the Arabic world for their own gain, or mostly so. The true believers seem to be the ones who die for someone else's glory and power. We defended ourselves by turning the world against the terrorists including the Muslim world. It took time but it worked and is still working. No, we can not get all of them. Anyone who thinks so is a fool. There will always be a few who can do a lot of damage if they are willing to die in the attempt. See the original assassins.
Deterrence is a very valid form of defense and it is best done at a distance. It also means fewer people get hurt or killed. I like that. Don't you? Or...do you want the opposite?
Oh yeah....by the way. Since this was all about oil, where is the oil? Surely we now have a glut of it coming from Iraq and Afghanistan since we took them over. Tanker after tanker sending free oil to the US, right? Where are they? Where is the oil?
Be well....
Malkinius
_____________________________
A questioner by inclination...An Auctioneer for the fun of it
http://www.HouseMalkinius.com The goal is community.
|
RE: Arilines: questions, comments and complaints - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread