Pentagon Design Under Rumsfeld . . .

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Long Term Multi-Generational War Plan

20 year plan plus 'Mission Creep' guantees a return to the 'Cold War Strategy' of it's always 'Us versus Them'
we just shift the 'them' when we need to.

Rumsfeld, et al, just clings to the mentality of the Glory Years - the '50's & 60's when the policy was keep it going at all costs.
(The 'anti-Commie', Pinko Sympathizer Strategy)
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
As a country we are digging ourselves deeper & deeper into a hole which is going to be difficult to get out of in the years to come.

The more aggressive we are the more enemies we make and it becomes as self sustaining vicious cycle.

What happened to the promise of world peace?


 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
What happened to the promise of world peace?

Its not profitable for Big Business and not pleasing to most world religions.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

What happened to the promise of world peace?
Went out the door when the have nots want the haves to support them.

 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Way before the war on terror is over the US will be a democracy in name only.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

What happened to the promise of world peace?
Went out the door when the have nots want the haves to support them.

Huh?

Now 'teh terrarists' are attacking because America doesn't provide enough help to its own poor?

You lost me.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
EagleKeeper, when you say the have nots want the havs to support them, you mean like if we were to cut our subsidies to farmers? This is a big "have not" issue. Seems fair to me -- of course, I'm not a farmer and we're not going to do it.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
What happened to the promise of world peace?
Went out the door when the have nots want the haves to support them.
Huh?

Now 'teh terrarists' are attacking because America doesn't provide enough help to its own poor?

You lost me.
OIL
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
As long as some one (country or person) has something that another desires and is unwilling to work at, others will attempt to destroy or sling mud.

It is easier to pull down than to build up and for many much more satisfying.

The concept of world peace is great in theory; however for most have-nots and many haves; peace has to be the way they want it and makes them feel comfortable.

Gimme attitude.
"Terrorists", poor, rich alike.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
In a world where that peace monger Gorbachef waved the white flag and declaired the west had won the cold war there is now a missing element to justify continued high defense spending.----the military industrial complex has a new savior in Osama Bin Laden. Just screaming terrorist threat and the defense money again flows like water out from Congress as the American people watch their civil liberties vanish.

So rather than resort to diplomatic means-----and try to defuse issues that aid terrorist recruitment----we wage war on hapless countries using the latest weapons-----which drives out moderate leaders who don't believe in terror tactics and drives terrorist recruiting----which creates more terrorists which means we must have even more weapons.

A wonderful self sustaining cycle-----if you like self sustaining cycles solely for their ability to self sustain.

 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
You really need to read the article...

Moreover, the review's key assumptions betray what Pentagon leaders acknowledge is a certain humility regarding the Defense Department's uncertainty about what the world will look like over the next five, 10 or 20 years, as well as its realization that the U.S. military cannot attain victory alone.


The new strategy marks a clear shift away from the Pentagon's long-standing emphasis on conventional wars of tanks, fighter jets and destroyers against nation-states. Instead, it concentrates on four new goals: defeating terrorist networks; countering nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; dissuading major powers such as China, India and Russia from becoming adversaries; and creating a more robust homeland defense.


Probally one of the best things to come out of DOD PR wise. They understand that they need help from other people, and they understand they need to be able to resolve things diplomatically.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
The "War on Terrar" is the Neocons' wet dream come true, the perfectly nebulous enemy. It's the perfect "Us vs Them" Leo Strauss scenario, where "Them" can be easily redefined at will- witness the invasion of Iraq.

As with Orwell's 1984, it's not really about the supposed "War", at all, but about domestic politics, about deception as a means of control and manipulation. It's not about truth, but about what people can be led to believe, about recreating perceived reality to suit the purposes of a few.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The "War on Terrar" is the Neocons' wet dream come true, the perfectly nebulous enemy. It's the perfect "Us vs Them" Leo Strauss scenario, where "Them" can be easily redefined at will- witness the invasion of Iraq.

As with Orwell's 1984, it's not really about the supposed "War", at all, but about domestic politics, about deception as a means of control and manipulation. It's not about truth, but about what people can be led to believe, about recreating perceived reality to suit the purposes of a few.

You make a good point, but is it not more logical to go for the cause rather than the symptom? That is what the current strategery is. That is a better way to achieve the same or similar belief.

After all go back to the 60's & 70's when US controlled the world through the almighty dollar rather than brute force and other countries willingly toed the line.


 

Worlocked

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
289
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Way before the war on terror is over the US will be a democracy in name only.

Was never a Democracy and hopefully never will be.

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC


"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Random thought on the subect for random discussion:

How are we going to keep our outsourced factories running if someday the employess in their anti-western sentiment start blowing up the call centers, sweat shotps, etc.? Nothing says America hates you like a bright sign saying Wal-Mart.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Worlocked
Originally posted by: techs
Way before the war on terror is over the US will be a democracy in name only.

Was never a Democracy and hopefully never will be.

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson


Sounds exactly like the 2004 presidential election in this CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC :laugh:

Any way you slice it, this is a democracy.


 

Worlocked

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
289
0
0
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Worlocked
Originally posted by: techs
Way before the war on terror is over the US will be a democracy in name only.

Was never a Democracy and hopefully never will be.

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson


Sounds exactly like the 2004 presidential election in this CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC :laugh:

Any way you slice it, this is a democracy.

Wrong.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Worlocked
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Worlocked
Originally posted by: techs
Way before the war on terror is over the US will be a democracy in name only.

Was never a Democracy and hopefully never will be.

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson


Sounds exactly like the 2004 presidential election in this CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC :laugh:

Any way you slice it, this is a democracy.
Wrong.
You do realize that there are 2 meanings of the word democracy - one as a type of government and the other a form of government! :D





 

Worlocked

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
289
0
0
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Worlocked
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Worlocked
Originally posted by: techs
Way before the war on terror is over the US will be a democracy in name only.

Was never a Democracy and hopefully never will be.

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson


Sounds exactly like the 2004 presidential election in this CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC :laugh:

Any way you slice it, this is a democracy.
Wrong.
You do realize that there are 2 meanings of the word democracy - one as a type of government and the other a form of government! :D

Yes, I do. Our government fits neither discription. You could argue that we are a representative Democracy, but you would be wrong, the Constitution is the highest order of law, or more specificly, the SCOTUS.

From wikipedia:

The definition of the word 'democracy' from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term 'democracy' refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.

There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the American "Founding Fathers." According to this usage, the word 'democracy' refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a 'republic.' This older terminology retains some popularity in U.S. conservative and Libertarian debate.

The original framers of the U.S. Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. (See Tyranny of the majority below). For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. [3] However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure.

Modern definitions of the term 'republic,' however, refer to any state with an elective head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchies are also not considered to be republics.)



Also see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotus
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
This happens every time a Sec. of Defense comes out of his hole and sees his shadow.
Another 20 years of war.
 

Worlocked

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
289
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
This happens every time a Sec. of Defense comes out of his hole and sees his shadow.
Another 20 years of war.

:laugh: That was pretty good.