Posted on 02/18/2007 12:46:40 AM PST by Posting
That's a keeper. Gonna steal it. Thanks.
Well, this mom does wear combat boots and carries a pistol. I will continue to does so long after I retire from the military.
I do not believe there is a solid plan one way or another in either public or private in our area...very troublesome!
That should have been "It came out...". I was NOT there or anywhere close.
Unfortunately, if godforbid an attack were to occur at a school, the reaction would be a ridiculous OVERreaction as it ALWAYS is in the culture of public schools. Like the kid who is suspended from school because he draws a picture of his dad, a u.s. soldier, in uniform with a gun. Schoolboards, PTA's, superintendants,teachers, and teacher's unions, are not exactly qualified to make decisions that our military, police, and defense department are making everyday.
Mine's in private school....but how does that protect him from a terrorist?
This was available on policeone.com weeks ago but that is a secure site. Thanks for getting it out into the mainstream.
-----------------------------------------------
I agree, killing innocent Americans in a place like, say New York City would really galvanize the country in the WOT.
--------------------------------------
"Pragmatist"? I can think of dozens of words to describe your position but pragmatist is not one of them.
I believe that Jez doesn't realize how offensive what she wrote is to folks in urban areas, particularly NYC. However, it is a sad commentary on the divided nation that such a thing would occur to her.
My concern is the aftermath. Watch our constitutional rights go out the window.
The attack happened at the tail end of the summer. Beslan is in the far south of Russia...much closer to Terhan than Moscow. The world is literally at your fingertips...go do some research.
If there's another terrorist attack in the USA, on the scale of 9/11, one of the first acts of the Powers That Be will be a move to "protect innocent moslem citizens from vigilantes"....by disarming American citizens. How they'll do that remains to be seen, but I wouldn't be surprised if they try (and to a large extent succeed).
That would be a strategic blunder. Here are the reasons why the two situations are different.
JFK faced Krushchev when each were figureheads of their respective nations. The USSR focused upon centralized control over regional centralized command. The US focused upon decentralized control with centralized command. Both nations were engaged in what has been characterized as symmetrical warfare. We both sought parity or to slightly exceed one another in military power believing any war between us would result in an ultimate one-on-one conflict with centralized command and control between the two nations in combat.
In assymetric warfare, th objectives of each player are different. Command & Staff College frequently uses examples of the French in Libya and Angola to demonstrate these issues. They are also classically studied in Marxism and Revolutionary Warfare similar to the tactics employed by Marxist guerilla fighters. The revolutionary seeks to upset his more powerful adversary by first undermining his political support. One operational objective is to simply erode public confidence in the existing establishment. This might be accomplished by hit and run tactics, always creating chaos in areas of publicly perceived established strength, e.g. attacking phone lines, utilities, power grids, commonly used features of society which have become second nature to living by the law within society.
The resources required to commit such revolutionary assymetric warfare may be very scant and highly dispersed or sparsely distributed. Accordingly, in order to defeat such a threat mano a mano, one must either use totalitarian methods, which in and of itself aides and abets the revolutionary cause by fostering loss of freedom, or by treating the threat as more of a police matter attacking criminality. The later method is weak because the threat is more substantial generally than isolated criminals acting only in their personal interests, but instead is also a political problem. A third method of defeating such a threat is simply to adress the will of the people directly and unify the political will of the people in opposition to such threats. (This, IMHO, is where we as a Christian nation have been woefully negligent. Instead of being tactful to the unbeliever, by remaining mute, we have the resources to forcefully communicate the Gospel in grace and standing by our beliefs not to condone an erosion of faith through Christ in anything.)
The intent of this type of revolutionary is to make the revolutionary cause more prolific than it actually is, thereby destablizing the established government and increasing the numbers of people who would consider the revolution as a viable alternative. (As a sidenote, revolution from legitimate authority is disobedient to God's will because He alone gives authority to the powers and dominions. Doubly sinful, is the thinking that not only should pne disobey legitimate authority, but that one may seek an alternate authroity independent of God. Accordingly, revolutionary thinking of this sort merely promotes a counterfeit system of government which might last a couple of centuries, but isn't holy.)
In the case if Iran, we have an additional problem of a foreign national leader who believes he is destined to usher in the Islamic messiah by fomenting chaos throughout the world. Unlike Krushchev, who had incentive to promote socialist communism worldwide, the Islamic world seeks to destroy Christianity and Judaism, meanwhile ushering in an Armageddon like environment so that they might reach paradise. Krushchev's paradise was a worldwide unified government on earth independent of God. Ahmadinejad's paradise comes after the planet is embroiled in an Armageddon like environment, caused by his work independent of God (accordingly Ahmadinejad's god is a false god and his goal is disobedient to the will of God, but may likely well fall into the domain of antichristian force dedicated to causing a premature Armageddon).
In returning to your initial proposal, to simply threaten to nuke all of Islam if we are attacked again,...IMHO, such a threat would defeat our position strategically and reinforce our enemy's position on two strategic fronts.
First, those elements of Islam which have been created to be independent, decentralized command cells, would be positioned to further their cause of destabilizing establishd authority throughout the western world. It would merely provoke those isolated elements of Islam to attack because they know their actions would spark worldwide conflict, weaken established reliance of peoples upon their national governance, and encourage them to seek alternate objects of reliance, ...which is the very thing they seek.
Secondly, leaders such as Ahmadinejad would obtain their objectives in promoting a worldwide conflagration, to usher in an Armageddon for them to perform works which they perceive will gain them entrance into paradise.
It is also, IMHO, the very reason Iran is pursuing nuclear weaponry. Not to centralize their command and control, but to decentralize command and control of military force within the sphere of Islam. This has already been advanced and matured with regard to suicide bombing, a tactic which still eludes the thinking process of most western thinkers.
IMHO, the source of the conflict lies not in manmade solutions to world problems, but rather man refusing to work according to God's plan and substituting human good for divine good. The solution is to encourage those who are not in fellowship with God, to understand how that relationship exists by God's protocols and not ours. Once that occurs, the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. While the believer remains in fellowship with God, there is no loss which isn't overcome by a victory through faith in Him. Such thinking is the only solution to prevent man from either following false doctrine and false religion performing the work of the Adversary, or from following his own independent thinking which simply blinds man to the grace of God and exposes man to the chaos which ensues.
Surely you don't mean (gasp) mercenaries!?!?
Ping
Future reference
and
My thoughts confirmed
Are you thinking green-helmet guy?
THANKS MUCH.
VERY CRUCIALLY INFORMATIVE, IMHO.
I hope it doesn't get pulled. Why did the long last one get pulled? too much info for the enemy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.