"It's called war Ed. We didn't have enough money to safeguard the lives of our soldiers who stormed Normandy Beach, or fought in the Battle of the Bulge either."
Don't be a simpleton. There's a difference between asking our soldiers to take necessary risks in a mission that offers a decent chance of success versus asking them to be targets in a conflict where the enemy has far too many advantages.
And, by the way, Normandy Beach was a huge screw up. The army made so many mistakes that were lethal for our troops that it makes me shudder to think about it. The only thing worth remembering about that fiasco was that many of our soldiers did the best they could there, and that took a lot of guts.
"If you REALLY think their ideas are that strong, then you should only be even MORE CONVINCED that we must oppose them at every turn. Because a weak idea is not going to proliferate and spread. A strong one, such as global Jihad and restoration of the Caliphate WILL PROLIFERATE to the point where the costs we incur NOW will pale in contrast to what we have to spend in blood and treasure in the future."
You should recognize that global Jihad or a Caliphate movement is not the prime motivating factor driving many of the groups that have opposed our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. For you to see our opposition in such black and white terms seems to be simply fear based hysteria on your part. As a corollary, that would be comparable to the Afghan and Iraqi people attributing our national motives to the crazies over here who believe that our efforts there are a religiously based crusade. There are people who do support the wars on that basis but they're the most radical among us and they are a distinct minority.
Insurgent resistance to a foreign force exercising police or military power in their land is almost always based on nationalistic and patriotic resistance to foreign rule. There are, of course, many other motivations that to one degree or another are used to fire people up enough to kill and die but if you can't understand the power of nationalism in the citizens of another country then you'll continue to be clueless.
And, of course, for you to fear puffy motives of a few loudmouths versus their realistic capabilities is panicky and childish.
"How are we going to defend our own homeland against the WMD equivalent of IEDs? A container ship, or cargo airliner, containing chemical or biological weapons, neither of which are particularly difficult for a minor nation to organize and create can easily slip into a US port, or airspace, and kill more Americans than the number of soldiers who have died in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan."
For starters we could take the ONE MILLION dollars a year that every soldier we send to Afghanistan costs and we could use that treasure to equip and man port security and our borders.
But even before we get to that issue, I have to ask what you're thinking. Do you really think that we will face such dangers from a "minor nation" whose address we have? Every expert I've ever read on this subject thinks that the real danger comes from nationless people living in the shadows who'd like to initiate the religiously based WW111 scenario that you seem so determined to promote.
"The only way, unfortunately, that we can deal with them is to defeat them with ideas and military force, and a subtle psyops effort aimed at spreading the belief that their repeated defeats in the face of the "crusaders" is a sign that they do not have the favor of Allah."
"The only way...."????
Yeah, more shock and awe, that's the ticket. And more phoney psyops crap akin to the war on drugs psyops drivel that was laughed at and ignored because it was created by true believers like you who had no sense of their audience and no touch with reality and who therefor lost all credibility by overstating their case and making laughingstocks of themselves.
You keep wanting to fight losing wars thinking you'll "win" this time by doing the same thing that cost you the last war, only bigger this time. That's what I call stupid. Ed
|
