Nuclear Report On Iran Puts Israel in a Box

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is no "take no prisoners" policy. When they can take prisoners, they do so. Then they lock them up somewhere where they will not get out: Diego Garcia, Poland, who knows? and none of us ever hear about it.

Drones are used against specific men they cannot capture, and they try not to kill those that are not the enemy. I think they have made few mistakes and are getting better at reducing "collateral damage".

I see no reason to believe that Romney would not do exactly the same thing, though he might reintroduce torture, and then deny it.
Romney wants to spend WAY too much on the military. As a rule, this slogan applies: "Give them an army, they will give us a war".

 

[Plane]

There is no "take no prisoners" polocy..........................As a rule, this slogan applies: "Give them an army, they will give us a war".

 

Hilarious.

President Obama is not taking prisoners, this is not a criticism from me. President Bush had a policy of prisoner collection that left us in charge of a lot of expensive and useless prisoners that we are going to have to keep a long time, not taking prisoners seems to be working better.

I like your slogan, it is so totally opposite of true ,it has enough irony to build a battleship.
Perhaps army free and prosperous countrys are common in history , I just havn't heard of many.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Reagan built up the army and we got wars: Grenada, Panama, and then Iraq I and II.

What Romney wants to do makes no sense at all. With two wars ending, he wants an even bigger military. He wants to spend more than the Pentagon requests. It is insane.

[Plane]

Carter and Clinton toree the heart out of the military and we got wars, that is not a point.

Will we go into the really inevitable wars with what it takes to win , or a little less than that , that is the point.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Carter caused no war and neither did Clinton.

At no point during either administration did the US have a smaller military than any other country.

That is just bullshit.

[Plane]

Carter caused no war and neither did Clinton.

At no point during either administration did the US have a smaller military than any other country.

That is just bullshit.

"Caused"?

Is there an objective or subjective standard for "Caused"?

Clinton could have left the Serbs alone, Carter could have taken what Iran was dishing out with a smile, just as well as "Reagan could have left the Cubans alone and Bush I and Bush II could have let Saddam Hussein consolidate his bloodline in power.

The last time that the US had a smaller military than another countey is .................. right now and ever since the fall of Nationalist China, they may be under armed but for sheer scale the Chineese are very impressive.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The US could not win a land war in Asia with China without nukes, and perhaps even with them.

That is why they should stay out of Asia. China does not want a war.

I do not want to pay for any more military than we already have, which is too much.

[Plane]

The US could not win a land war in Asia with China without nukes, and perhaps even with them.

That is why they should stay out of Asia. China does not want a war.

I do not want to pay for any more military than we already have, which is too much.

Last time we tried, we fought to a painfull stalemate.

Since then the US and China have both grown stronger and been inventive.

So.................... past performance may not indicate future results.

China has problems we don't and vice versa, I would hate to have a war like that but I am not sure we would loose.

China has also grown a lot more reasonable, maybe that fight never has to happen.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It was not cheap to end WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War.

It will not be cheap to leave Iraq or Afghanistan, either.

Israel will figure out a way to charge us for anything they do... they always have.

There is absolutely NO reason to fight a war with China in Asia. Taiwan is not worth the cost. China does not want Korea, and no one should die defending the Spratly Archipelago.

[Plane]

War is by its nature very very expensive.

So expensive that it is worth tremendous spending to prevent .

Having effective and impressive capability ready, means, at least, you need not fight the wise.

And the fights with the fools that cannot be avoided , will be shorter if there is enough force on tap to overwhelm .(along with the will and wisdom to use it well)

Once our country is strong enough to intimidate the prudent and squash the impudent , all that remains necessacery is to avoid being the fools ,that make fights inevitable, ourselves.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Once our country is strong enough to intimidate the prudent and squash the impudent , all that remains necessacery is to avoid being the fools ,that make fights inevitable, ourselves.

===============================
The US has many times this strength.

It is not wise for us to play the international policeman who imposes his will on those who simply have different values. It is not our role to impose women's rights in Afghanistan or Pakistan by any sort of force of arms.

We can explain our culture to women in those countries, but really, others have a right to their own culture.

I recall that in the 1960's when I lived in Mexico, women simply never appeared in public in pants, and certainly not in shorts. All that is a thing of the past now,  even in small rural towns. TV was what changed the culture. Not US TV, Mexican TV.

[Plane]

Once our country is strong enough to intimidate the prudent and squash the impudent , all that remains necessacery is to avoid being the fools ,that make fights inevitable, ourselves.

===============================
The US has many times this strength.

Yes thank Reagan and Bush.

Though when you say "many times" just three posts after you have said that China could push us around an inconsistancy appears.
I think Barak Obama is just promising to change that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am not going to thank Reagan, who was out of office in 1984, for a military that we have today. What Reagan did is no9w obsolete or was destroyed in all the skirmishes and warts since 1984.

Juniorbush wasted HUGE amounts of money and lives, sending our military on a fool's mission, and unprepared with no plan after the conquest.

It was run by a collection of disturbed Jews who identified Baath with the Nazis and disbanded the Iraqi army and police, which led to several years of murderous anarchy. That destroyed huge amounts of our military.

Again Give them and army, they will give us a war.

[Plane]

I am not going to thank Reagan, who was out of office in 1984, for a military that we have today. What Reagan did is no9w obsolete or was destroyed in all the skirmishes and warts since 1984.

Juniorbush wasted HUGE amounts of money and lives, sending our military on a fool's mission, and unprepared with no plan after the conquest.

It was run by a collection of disturbed Jews who identified Baath with the Nazis and disbanded the Iraqi army and police, which led to several years of murderous anarchy. That destroyed huge amounts of our military.

Again Give them and army, they will give us a war.

Nice opinions ,

nothing correct in the pile.

If by "them" you mean all of them,.... maybe , only a few presidents in the last century have not had to deal with war.

A tiny fraction of the equipment and structure Reagan built has been used up or destroyed, Carter was a lot more distructive of the military by sheer neglect, but Carter too had to deal with war.

I am not happy with the loss of life we saw in Iraq, but considering the (realistic) alternatives , we got off very cheap.

The only solution to the quagmire we were in in Iraq that might have cost us less deaths and loss would be lots of high level bombing as did Clinton to the Serbs. The cost of that policy is much greater collateral damage , Sun Tzu would have agreed with the Clinton and Obama method. Maximising the cost to the enemys population can shorten the war, I daresay General Sherman would have also agreed with Obama and Clinton also about maximising damage to enemy population while minimising damage of any and all kinds to ones own side.

This I see as a serious failing of both Presidents Bush they both tryed too hard to minimise colateral damage and preserve the enemy population , even attempting quite hard to preserve arceological digs on enemy territory. This seems to have had the perverse effect of prolonging the conflict, getting the enemy accustomed to loss, and hardened .

I like both Bushes pretty well otherwise, but it would have helped a lot if President Bush II had been given a seminar on warfare by President Clinton, who I like on almost no other count.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have had the proud duty of voting against Bushes SIX TIMES. Only those who moved from Texas to Florida could have done more for their country than that. If one moved at the right time, it could have been possible to vote against Bushes EIGHT times.

Jeb was the best GOP governor other than Charlie Crist, but that is because the Florida GOP is a mob of idiots, currently led by a con man, Rick Scott.

Iraq should never have been fought in the first place. Saddam was no threat to the US or its people, at least not any except those flying over Iraq.

This country has been at war with some country or another since I was born. We were not defending ourselves most of the time, and most of those wars could have been avoided by better diplomacy and smarter leaders. Enough already!