Political Discussion

[daves2000ls]

I'm sorry, I'm not catching the Heydrich reference. Really, could you explain it?

 

[TheDude]

I'm sorry, I'm not catching the Heydrich reference. Really, could you explain it?

It was a low-blow at your "Let's kill em all..." rant. Reinhard Heydrich was a top SS security officer in the Nazi party. Hitler commissioned him to architect the "final solution" which was to kill all the Jews in Europe.

 

[fossten]

It was a low-blow at your "Let's kill em all..." rant. Reinhard Heydrich was a top SS security officer in the Nazi party. Hitler commissioned him to architect the "final solution" which was to kill all the Jews in Europe.

And he was quite successful. There are undoubtedly very few, if any, Jews left in Europe. Now they all live in either America or a little sliver in the Middle East surrounded by malevolent enemies.

I'm not for genocide, and I doubt Dave is either. I think I know what he means. If you adopt a footing of total war, eventually the enemy will sue for peace. Then you get to dictate terms instead of negotiate terms.

Here's my perfect scenario: Go into Iran. Wipe out their military, their nukes, their industries, seize their oil fields before they can blow them, take over the Persian Gulf and establish a blockade. Cut off all funding and commerce in and out of Iran.

Go house to house and confiscate all weapons in Iran, leave the mosques standing with American armed guards inside the doors screening every single worshiper who wants to enter. They won't blow up the mosque just to kill some guards.

Mass tank divisions on the borders of Syria and Saudi Arabia, and announce that we will begin invading Syria within 30 days. Saudi Arabia will see the handwriting on the wall, especially since we'll be talking to them behind the scenes and dropping BIG hints.

Eventually, the Saudis will be like, "Hey, what is it gonna take for you guys to go away?" We'll answer, "You stop teaching and sponsoring terrorism, and you cut our oil prices by half for the next 50 years, and we'll go away. From now on we're holding you personally responsible for the terrorism worldwide. If there's even one muslim terrorist attack anywhere in the world, we'll be right over." Then we leave inspectors and random auditors who speak Arabic to check out the schools and watch their newscasts.

All the little pissant Arab countries will follow Saudi Arabia's lead, and the world will be safe for a few decades. Plus, gas will get really cheap.

 

[daves2000ls]

All the little pissant Arab countries will follow Saudi Arabia's lead, and the world will be safe for a few decades. Plus, gas will get really cheap.

and that's something we will all enjoy.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

The big fly in the ointment of your guys scenario is, how do you expect to pull that off w/ a military that is struggling to send 21.5K troops into Iraq?

 

[TheDude]

The big fly in the ointment of your guys scenario is, how do you expect to pull that off w/ a military that is struggling to send 21.5K troops into Iraq?

Kill the jelly-spined terrorist loving liberals first?

 

[MonsterMark]

The big fly in the ointment of your guys scenario is, how do you expect to pull that off w/ a military that is struggling to send 21.5K troops into Iraq?

Humm....Sounds like Johnny likes.

Here's what we do. We raise the enlistment to 1 year greater than your age Johnny and then draft your butt so we can put you on a boat in the mess hall making sure my dinner is 'hot and ready' when I land from one of my frequent sorties blowing the crap out of the bad guys.

What do you guys think? Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[fossten]

The big fly in the ointment of your guys scenario is, how do you expect to pull that off w/ a military that is struggling to send 21.5K troops into Iraq?

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

I will concede that the current political climate in the United States, with Dems in charge and the anti-war media, will never allow it to happen. So we're stuck with the status quo. Bush is lucky to get funds for the upcoming surge, let alone anything else.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

I will concede that the current political climate in the United States, with Dems in charge and the anti-war media, will never allow it to happen. So we're stuck with the status quo. Bush is lucky to get funds for the upcoming surge, let alone anything else.

I disagree that the "political climate" is what is keeping BuSh from doing the RIGHT thing. It's not for a shortage of money, its for a shortage of heads. If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times. Go BIG or go HOME. But since our troops have been spread so thin between Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention all the other comitted deployments that existed prior to 9/11), going BIG is not even an option. How to solve that problem? Either stop treating our wounded vets like crap by closing VA hospitals left and right to encourage more volunteers, or re-institute a civil service or draft. There is no way this big GWOT is going to be won from the air without killing millions of innocent civilians (BTW, why don't we offer those refugees a place to stay?? Less than 100 Iraqis have been allowed to immigrate to the US since '03!!), it's going to take boots on the ground to surgically remove the cancerous terrorists from their embedded positions amongst civilians.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Humm....Sounds like Johnny likes.

Here's what we do. We raise the enlistment to 1 year greater than your age Johnny and then draft your butt so we can put you on a boat in the mess hall making sure my dinner is 'hot and ready' when I land from one of my frequent sorties blowing the crap out of the bad guys.

What do you guys think? Sounds like a plan to me.

If they want my ass, I'd be game. However I know I'm already being much more productive helping the troops by keeping their equipment working and providing intel from space.

 

[fossten]

I disagree that the "political climate" is what is keeping BuSh from doing the RIGHT thing. It's not for a shortage of money, its for a shortage of heads. If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times. Go BIG or go HOME. But since our troops have been spread so thin between Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention all the other comitted deployments that existed prior to 9/11), going BIG is not even an option. How to solve that problem? Either stop treating our wounded vets like crap by closing VA hospitals left and right to encourage more volunteers, or re-institute a civil service or draft. There is no way this big GWOT is going to be won from the air without killing millions of innocent civilians (BTW, why don't we offer those refugees a place to stay?? Less than 100 Iraqis have been allowed to immigrate to the US since '03!!), it's going to take boots on the ground to surgically remove the cancerous terrorists from their embedded positions amongst civilians.

Going BIG would be an option because we DO have enough troops and materiel. We haven't sent over a quarter of our deployable forces yet. But going BIG is not an option because the Democrats would never stand for it. Look what a fuss they made over a little tiny surge.

Speaking of the Democrats, tell me this: If the Democrats are so against the surge and the war, why don't they take a stand and de-fund the war like they did in Vietnam? And if your answer is because, as cowards, they don't want to incur the ire of the American people by leaving our soldiers hanging, why then did they pass this silly resolution opposing the war? Is that not demoralizing our troops and emboldening the enemy?

Why won't the Democrats, if they "support the troops" so much, pass a resolution urging victory in Iraq?