How to Defend America?


Recommended Posts

Over in the "Ron Paul Open Letter" thread, Brant Gaede and Jody Gomez agreed that Ron Paul has no idea how to protect America. I have to admit that this is, indeed, a tough problem. I was wondering if Brant or Jody had any concrete suggestions or an abstract framework for such?

My own conceptual thinking is limited to office parks and shopping malls, so defending an entire nation the size of the USA is something to ponder. My own lifetime of experience begins with the last days of long-range cannons pointed out to sea, seige balloons protecting cities from low-flying bombers, and short range attack planes toted about on ships, with the leading edge of technology being "mutually assured destruction" via atomic bombs on ballisitic missiles. That thinking became obsoete in 1979 when I read Basement Nukes: Social Consequences of Cheap Weapons of Mass Destruction by Erwin S. ("Filthy Pierre")Strauss. IN that book, Strauss drew an analogy between the Middle Ages and our time. Gunpowder made castle walls obsolete and in our time new weapons that the nation state cannot defend against will bring about new social forms. He pointed to gated communities. That was 25 years ago and last week, I delivered a presentation to a class in police organization that included some recent facts about the 20,000 gated communities that are home to 8 million people. That is a small, but growing trend. I can think about ways to defend a gated community. I was just wondering if anyone had any ideas for a larger area, like one-third of North America?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mr Marotta

If you'll allow me to move this in a slightly different direction for a moment, a direction supported by attacks on America like the Beirut bombing and the attack on the USS Cole, America because of its global economic, cultural and political power must defend itself outside America just as much as on its own domestic turf. If you want to get specific and define the enemy as militant Islam then America is being defended by powers like Britain who support the War on Terror, Israel which is heavily involved for both good and ill, and nations like Spain that caved.

The war is Global because America and the West are global. Arguably fronts like Afghanistan and Iraq are far more important to America's defense than anything Homeland Defense will ever be needed for and accomplish.

Just thought I'd stress that dimension of things.

As for defending America domestically I think that's a pipe dream by and large. We can use intelligence to use informants and surveillance to find terrorists before they strike but once that point is crossed, well, just think of how many people you could kill before work in the morning if you really wanted to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

I'll give more on this later, but I'll sum it up briefly. I'd rather take it to the enemy rather than sit back and hole myself up in some remote region of Montana and wait for the enemy to bring it to me. It basically boils down to being proactive rather than reacitve. Ron Paul is foolish if he thinks we can adopt an isolationist policy against islamo-fascists. Tell me, are you glad that our military is fighting this filth in Iraq, or would you rather sit around and wait for the enemy to come to us? When the world of Islam, and Islamic nations declare Jihad on America, I want a president who will take them at their word. Given your field of security, you must appreciate action vs. reaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael,

I'll give more on this later, but I'll sum it up briefly. I'd rather take it to the enemy rather than sit back and hole myself up in some remote region of Montana and wait for the enemy to bring it to me. It basically boils down to being proactive rather than reacitve. Ron Paul is foolish if he thinks we can adopt an isolationist policy against islamo-fascists. Tell me, are you glad that our military is fighting this filth in Iraq, or would you rather sit around and wait for the enemy to come to us? When the world of Islam, and Islamic nations declare Jihad on America, I want a president who will take them at their word. Given your field of security, you must appreciate action vs. reaction.

On the mark! When you say it, it sounds reasonable. When I say the same thing, it sounds bloodthirsty. Take it to THEM!

Smarrrtttt as paint ye arrrre!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael,

I'll give more on this later, but I'll sum it up briefly. I'd rather take it to the enemy rather than sit back and hole myself up in some remote region of Montana and wait for the enemy to bring it to me. It basically boils down to being proactive rather than reacitve.

Oh, absolutely! We obviously had only two choices, either bomb the shit out of Iraq, invade and occupy their country, kill several hundred thousand of them, destroy their cities, their homes, and their infrastructure, or to sit in our bunkers here in the US, trembling with terror, waiting for Iraq to launch an invasion against us. What other alternatives could their possibly have been?

Ron Paul is foolish if he thinks we can adopt an isolationist policy against islamo-fascists.

There's no such thing as islamo-fascists. There are Islamists and their are pan-Arab nationalists whose views have some things in common with fascism. These two groups don't get along very well; in fact, they have a long history of killing each other. But it sure is fun hearing repeated all these mindless neocon talking points. Oh, and there's a big difference between "isolationism" and "non-interventionism". Perhaps you should read Ayn Rand's essay on isolationism and the art of smearing before using the phrase "isolationism" to smear your opponents.

Tell me, are you glad that our military is fighting this filth in Iraq, or would you rather sit around and wait for the enemy to come to us? When the world of Islam, and Islamic nations declare Jihad on America, I want a president who will take them at their word. Given your field of security, you must appreciate action vs. reaction.

How nice of you to describe the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the US invasion and occupation, along with the roughly four million refugees, as "filth". Does that include the Iraqi infants and children too, or just the adults? This definitely requires clarification. But I guess we just had to do it because, after all, if we hadn't, Iraq was all poised to invade our shores and forcibly convert us all into Bathists.

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no such thing as islamo-fascists. There are Islamists and their are pan-Arab nationalists whose views have some things in common with fascism.

Martin,

Woah theah! The Islamist connection with Fascism is historical and formal. I suggest the following article:

Islamic Terrorism's Links To Nazi Fascism by Robert Duncan

I admit Robert Duncan does lean towards conservatism, but his views in general are well reasoned and professionally researched. From what I have studied of this issue, his historical facts are spot on.

I also admit that the term "Islamo-Nazism" is more accurate, but at this distance from WWII, there is an understandable merging of ideologies.

Here is a site not done by conservatives, but by practicing Muslims, devoted to presenting the history of Nazism and Islamism: Tell the Children the Truth (and a newly added blog).

Here is quite an impressive visual: Islam and Nazism, albeit this site is run by former Muslims who are against Islam as a whole.

Facts are facts, regardless of who is right or wrong.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael,

I'll give more on this later, but I'll sum it up briefly. I'd rather take it to the enemy rather than sit back and hole myself up in some remote region of Montana and wait for the enemy to bring it to me. It basically boils down to being proactive rather than reacitve. Ron Paul is foolish if he thinks we can adopt an isolationist policy against islamo-fascists. Tell me, are you glad that our military is fighting this filth in Iraq, or would you rather sit around and wait for the enemy to come to us? When the world of Islam, and Islamic nations declare Jihad on America, I want a president who will take them at their word. Given your field of security, you must appreciate action vs. reaction.

On the mark! When you say it, it sounds reasonable. [....]

To whom? I normally stay entirely out of discussions of politics, national defense, Islamists, etc., but I must object to the presumption as to how Jody's comments might sound to others. To me, far from sounding "reasonable," they just sound like a string of vapid assertions.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael,

I'll give more on this later, but I'll sum it up briefly. I'd rather take it to the enemy rather than sit back and hole myself up in some remote region of Montana and wait for the enemy to bring it to me. It basically boils down to being proactive rather than reacitve. Ron Paul is foolish if he thinks we can adopt an isolationist policy against islamo-fascists. Tell me, are you glad that our military is fighting this filth in Iraq, or would you rather sit around and wait for the enemy to come to us? When the world of Islam, and Islamic nations declare Jihad on America, I want a president who will take them at their word. Given your field of security, you must appreciate action vs. reaction.

The Iraqi invasion was badly done and should not have been done at all. The U.S. could have put an army into Kuwait and intimidated what it wanted out of Hussein and been a continuing credible threat to countries like Iran and Syria. I was against the Iraqi War five years ago. This does not mean that I think the U.S. should now cut and run.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, absolutely! We obviously had only two choices, either bomb the shit out of Iraq, invade and occupy their country, kill several hundred thousand of them, destroy their cities, their homes, and their infrastructure, or to sit in our bunkers here in the US, trembling with terror, waiting for Iraq to launch an invasion against us. What other alternatives could their possibly have been?

By god, you're right! We could have had a 15th U.N. resolution. That would have certainly prevented the nonexistent "several hundred thousand" deaths. Well, Sadam was doing pretty well at raking in deaths and mass killings...but I see that you're blaming the U.S. Which certainly the U.N. could have prevented!

Could you please cite your sources for that "several hundred thousand of 'them'"?

Edited by Jody Gomez
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no such thing as islamo-fascists.

Bullshit. Learn what Fascism is, and read the statements of even a "moderate" Islamic group such as CAIR.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How nice of you to describe the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the US invasion and occupation, along with the roughly four million refugees, as "filth". Does that include the Iraqi infants and children too, or just the adults? This definitely requires clarification. But I guess we just had to do it because, after all, if we hadn't, Iraq was all poised to invade our shores and forcibly convert us all into Bathists.

Again, please cite your sources for that "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the US invasion and occupation..."

Just the adults.

Was Iraq poised to invade our shores? No. Was it a nation, or a few pieces of Islamic filth, backed by states that sponsor terrorism that attacked us on 9/11? After 9/11 Leonard Peiloff was on O'Reilly and was asked a very similar question that you intimated(though O'Reilly had more integrity and admittance than you do), and Peikoff asked, "Will it be our innocent women and children, or theirs?" Of course, the person that believes in the efficacy of that 15th U.N. resolution and 15th final, mother-of-all chances has ipso facto stated which women and children he will sacrifice.

And I iterate, please cite your fucking sources. Ohhh...I think I stumbled upon your source: www.moveon.org

Link to post
Share on other sites
To whom? I normally stay entirely out of discussions of politics, national defense, Islamists, etc., but I must object to the presumption as to how Jody's comments might sound to others. To me, far from sounding "reasonable," they just sound like a string of vapid assertions.

Ellen,

Your use of the pejorative "vapid" without argument to the contrary seems quite "vapid" to me. If you wish to argue, then argue. Certainly don't tell me that you normally stay out of such discussions, such as the vital ones, except when you flutter down from whatever ethereal realm you inhabit in order to proffer such grandiose arguments as "vapid assertions."

Edited by Jody Gomez
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no wish to argue with you, Jody, nor any intention of arguing with you; nor was I presenting an argument, "grandiose" or otherwise; nor did I think I was presenting an argument. I was doing exactly what I said I was doing, objecting to the implied presumption involved in Bob K.'s description of your comments.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no wish to argue with you, Jody, nor any intention of arguing with you; nor was I presenting an argument, "grandiose" or otherwise; nor did I think I was presenting an argument. I was doing exactly what I said I was doing, objecting to the implied presumption involved in Bob K.'s description of your comments.

Ellen

Ellen,

Had you merely said that you disagreed with Bob, I would have had no complaint. When you accuse me of a "string of vapid assertions" you are putting forth an argument. Don't back down now. I would have respected an honest disagreement. It's sucker-punches that I don't tolerate well. You have put forth an argument. You can either choose to back it up, or let your silence speak for you.

Edited by Jody Gomez
Link to post
Share on other sites
How nice of you to describe the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the US invasion and occupation, along with the roughly four million refugees, as "filth"

I must continue to address this, as it just astonishes me. I referred to fighting filth. We are fighting(over there, rather than here) al-Qaeda operatives. If you use scare quotes in describing my estimation of al-Qaeda as filth, then quite frankly, you are an amazing piece of shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Get real. Iraq was conquered for Exxon. The ploy failed. Presto, $100 oil.

W.

Care to cite any evidence for that claim?

Wolf is wrong. However, when one delves beneath the superficial skein, you find the Bush people historically involved with oil and their good buddies the Saudis and one begins to understand the Iraqi War a little better. Never mind that the Saudis have more to do with Islamo-fascist terrorism than any other people, government and group, going back at least decades to an extremist assault on Mecca in 1979. The Saudis beat the extremists by agreeing to propagate the extremists' thought enacted in deed world-wide by adherents. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. I thought at the time it was a brilliant setup, but now I don't.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites
You have put forth an argument. You can either choose to back it up, or let your silence speak for you.

I know what I said, and that it wasn't an argument. Possibly unlike you, I know what an argument is. For example, is your statement in your post #19 (I'm not sure to whom, since you don't identify whom you're quoting) "you are an amazing piece of shit" an argument?

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have put forth an argument. You can either choose to back it up, or let your silence speak for you.

I know what I said, and that it wasn't an argument. Possibly unlike you, I know what an argument is. For example, is your statement in your post #19 (I'm not sure to whom, since you don't identify whom you're quoting) "you are an amazing piece of shit" an argument?

___

Jody, when you quote please don't cut out the ID of whom you're quoting. And Ellen's right about her having an argument with you before, though now she is.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites
You have put forth an argument. You can either choose to back it up, or let your silence speak for you.

I know what I said, and that it wasn't an argument. Possibly unlike you, I know what an argument is. For example, is your statement in your post #19 (I'm not sure to whom, since you don't identify whom you're quoting) "you are an amazing piece of shit" an argument?

Ellen

___

Ellen,

I specifically addressed a quote by Martin, so I thought it would kind of be, oh... ipso facto obvious who I was addressing. Sorry to confuse you. And yes, my comment that you quoted was an argument...it was one of those ergo kind of things. So you can either use diversionary tactics, or directly address my statements to you, and directly address your argument that I put forth a "string of vapid assertions."

Edited by Jody Gomez
Link to post
Share on other sites

Argument: a reason given in proof or rebuttal(at least according to Merriam-Webster)

I think that saying that my statement was a "string of vapid assertions" was given in proof or rebuttal. Ergo...

Edited by Jody Gomez
Link to post
Share on other sites
Argument: a reason given in proof or rebuttal(at least according to Merriam-Webster)

I think that saying that my statement was a "string of vapid assertions" was given in proof or rebuttal. Ergo...

I admit, you may be right.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now