![]() |
|
Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
By war do you mean war, or war-war?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
No I mean there are certainly various degrees of "war" today. So, Bosnian war: was NATO's introduction justified, in your view?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
Example: how did Clinton finally step in and solve it? Dayton Accords. Milosevik was *invited* to a negotiation table in Dayton Ohio. He refused. And was *invited* again. Clinton and Holbrook understood the strategic objective - get to the peace table. Milosevik was told he could not leave Dayton until a settlement was negotiated. Yes, the US kidnapped Milosevik. Who then negotiated himself out of a job so to leave Dayton. Second, Bosnia was Europe's responsiblity. Europe failed. Once the massacres had been too often, too massive, and too extreme (Srebrenica, et al) then Clinton stepped in. The smoking gun was obvious. Only then was the British/French Rapid Reaction Force (and others) allowed to do their job. Clinton, et al focused only on the purpose - a peace table. He achieved a major victory using near zero military. In WWII, mankind massacred millions to get to the peace table. People were massacred for only one purpose. To take the conflict back to a peace table. Notice how many had so little respect for human life. Welcome to reality. Only getting to the negotiation matters. If tens of millions must be masscred, then so be it. Clinton (and smarter advisers) routinely solved wars without paying that price. Haiti. A near nuclear war between India and Pakistan. He even empowered the almost solved standoff on the Korean pennisula. And many lesser disagreements solved by negotiating long before any military action was even discussed. By solving problems using near zero military deployments. Go directly to the peace table by spending so little and never forgetting what really matters. Why is that peace table impossible in the Middle East? Every time a negotiation approaches a conclusion, Likud (the enemy of peace) changes conditions or fails to meet commitments. Likud clearly does not want peace. As demonstrated by even their calling for the assassination of Rabin - and getting it. Likud was quite clear. The peace settlement between Israel and Egypt is considered, by Likud, a major defeat. Never again: their attitude. Third - back to the point. This same Likud would attack Iran without any hope of a negotiated settlement? Any war that does not seek a settlement at the peace table quickly identifies fools. But then Likud is a perfect example of wacko extremists. Only viable solution to Iran's nuclear weapons is a negotiated settlement. If military is used as Israel wants, then the only possible solution is an complete invasion of Iran. Boots must be on the ground. If Israel does not want that, then any Israeli attack is only a classic fool's errand. War fought for no purpose. Same Israeli extremists made the same mistake in Lebanon. Will they ever learn? Only solution with Iran means a negotiated settlement. No other solution exists. So how does the world get Iran to that table? No other question is relevant. Curiously, the powers that be in Iran are even detaining many of Ahmadinejad's people. Smarter negotiators might find a solution in that inconsistency. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
The previous reply was from today's perspective. Let's take another perspective. Let's return to what I said back when. I did not believe a smoking gun yet existed. I worried that not enough people had yet died. Clinton knew better. If I remember correctly, he made that decision on 21 July 1996. History confirms how correct he was. A major victory achieved with near zero military action. Clinton and his people were masters of this.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
What was the smoking gun in Bosnia?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Lecturer
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
|
Bosnia was a difficult one to understand, for me. They have a LONG history between cultures and religious groups, there. If you don't have a good grasp of the history of the area, going back several hundred years, then you don't know enough to really understand the problem/s.
As an outsider, and not up on all that history, it seemed the leaders lead their groups toward intolerance and violence. Once THAT train of thought got rolling, it gained a lot of momentum. It's a great shame that it lead to war, and to the targeted killing of unarmed civilians. Moving down the path, nations sometimes take a mis-step and wind up in the ditch on the side of the road. Integration of cultural/racial/religious groups within the nation, has always been a difficult task for countries to complete, without a civil war. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Doctor Wtf
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Badelaide, Baustralia
Posts: 12,861
|
Adak, your statements about the amount of money spent on clean energy, and the amount of power it can produce, are as wrong as your one-sided views of the middle east.
I don't mind. But for the love of all that is decent, stop using apostrophes with plurals. Please, think of the children.
__________________
Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Lecturer
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
|
Quote:
We've put a huge amount of money into green energy projects. Our national green energy output as a percentage, has increased by about 2-3 %, over a space of a decade. What really ticks me off about the liberals on this, is that when we DO have a great solar energy project ready to go, they instantly sue to have it stopped, because (in this case), it might impact the desert tortoise! First, if you can't put a solar energy farm in the Mojave desert (which is practically devoid of wildlife), then WHERE are we going to put them? It is one of the sunniest area's in the entire country. Second, there is no confirmation that the area proposed even has ONE desert tortoise in it. ![]() Third, the desert tortoise is not an endangered animal, and might benefit from having some shade, under the solar arrays. This is unknown. But we know the solar project, is stopped! Hooray for the liberals. ![]() Since I haven't yet expressed my views on much of the Middle East, it is impossible for you to say that they are one-sided. I believe you'll be surprised at how "un one-sided", they really are, once you read them. The Liberty was impossible to accept as an accident, but I do believe it was criminal on our part to send in a "spy" ship so close to another country, without anything protecting it. We had another intelligence ship seized off the coast of North Korea. Same problem! Stupid Admiral/President, somewhere in Washington. I hope they learned something from these incidents. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |||||||
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A freighter, clearly flagged American, in international waters, is not fair game. They are no better than the Somali pirates. I've read testimony that they knew it was American, saying so over the radio, at least very shortly after the first attack, but continued to attack, concentrating on the communications antennae. No, this was a blatant and deliberate attack on the USA, but we still give them $Billions every year, put up with their military/industrial espionage/theft, and them acting like petulant teenagers. I think they need a time out.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | ||
Lecturer
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
|
Quote:
[quote] You're right, not endangered. Both sides knew they were there and negotiated how to work around that from the gitgo, as the dune buggys had already been chased out. It turned out there is a shitload more of them than anyone thought, but a bunch have been run over by trucks and killed by bulldozers. [Reagan] Now there you go again[/reagan] It ain't liberals, son, get your facts straight. Well son, it's damn sure not the conservatives, stopping a much needed multi-million dollar project to bring in more electrical power! Quote:
I also don't believe we need to have close in signal analysis done by "freighters", unprotected. Marines? No, I was thinking a cruiser, a sub, and a couple of destroyers, should do the trick. Ships are closely tracked, and that includes freighters. The idea that a "freighter", will be able to work covertly, is laughable. If it has a great cover story, like the old Glomar Explorer did when it grabbed part of a sunken Russian sub in a CIA op, then MAYBE if it stays far from the coast, and most of the work is done beneath the waves. Cultural Jews are typically petulant, imo. It is a strength and a bit of a curse, of their culture. If they're complaining, but not too loudly, then you know everything is A-OK. ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
All power that isn't geothermal or nuclear is solar (well, ALL power is solar, or rather stellar - we are star stuff!) (tidal energy and hydroelectric dams are more about gravity and lunar cycles, but it's the sun's energy powering the water cycle that creates the rivers...). It's just that plants harness that power so efficiently and well, that digging up ancient plants (and ancient animals that ate them and the animals that ate them) and burning them is actually more efficient than trying to harness solar energy ourselves.
In theory, there should be some way to harness solar power more effectively than trying to dig up dead stuff to burn. We might get there eventually. But not if we give up on it, and not if we don't keep working harder and harder to use what we have effectively and to research even more efficient ways to use it.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Lecturer
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
|
I agree with you hawkeye, except the improvements we will see in wind power, will not be large. Quite small, actually.
The Iranian leaders have already threatened to close/attack the oil tankers in the Gulf of Persia. No mystery or disagreement there. Already, almost every tanker serving the area, has been re-flagged by it's owner, as an American ship, to allow the US Navy to protect it. We can't protect other ships, to the same degree, by law. Soldiers would be needed to set charges in the underground facilities, if the bunker buster bombs couldn't handle it. It wouldn't be a huge ground force like the invasion of Iraq, but it might take a few hundred and LOTS of support from the air, before they went in. Your note about the probable increase in nuclear weapon proliferation, is well taken. I can't imagine that countries near Iran, would not feel compelled to have them, "since Iran does". Especially the countries that are largely Suni, and traditionally disliked by the Shiite Muslims . |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |||
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Just a quick few notes:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Adak, does Urbane Guerrilla mean anything to you?
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Lecturer
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
|
Quote:
We have not annexed or put in our own leaders, into power in Iraq. The Iraqi people are voting for their leaders. Kicking out Saddam and his ruling party, is not the same as taking over the country, and making it ours. Same with Afghanistan. We are leaving soon, and everyone knows it. We didn't ask for the war with in Afghanistan. They provided support and protection for Al Qaeda, and chose to fight with them. Yes, Urbane Guerrilla means you misspelled Urban. Sounds like a new runway fashion trend. ![]() Without a firm treaty however, they are free to kick the inspectors out of any of their sites, whenever they wish. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|