-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
2001 Pentagon War Plans: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, & Iran
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
OneShotFOGE
Sharpshooter
Plus we tried last year, but the public support wasnt there. Then they repackaged the deal and are currently bombing Syria. Idk if I believe this vid, but it has been on my radar. If Assad doesnt live through this conflict, then I'd say it would have some credibility.
Which conflict?
The conflict between his government and the islamofascists? Or the one between him and the more moderate (hey, its a relative term) forces fighting the civil war against him? Or the conflict between the US and the aforementioned islamofascists? Or the conflict between the US and Assad that has been simmering for a long time? IMHO, these really are separate conflicts.
I think there's a good chance he'll survive some of those - maybe all of them.
ETA:
In terms of contingency planning, I expect the DoD to have plans to fight every nation in the world. Except maybe Australia. That'd be a PITA because the only way to get there is through Indonesia.*
*Risk reference.
Not only was support not there, people were {shockingly} opposed to it.
Remember all these pictures the servicemen were posting? There was public outcry, there were physical protests, there was real political pressure. It was very encouraging.
But the Pentagon has the world's PSY-OPS experts at their disposal... the boogyman emerged... and the warfare agenda ultimately prevailed.
Let's assume that's true. Why would 4-star generals be briefed about the fulfillment of such an absurd, unjustified contingency plan?
The towers fell, and some very bloodthirsty policy-makers let their cards show. They want global hegemony. They used the pain of 9/11 to commit unprovoked war. If it was only a contingency plan, recall that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was first on the list.
Some of areas are less absurd than others.
There were legitimate reasons (IMHO) to put Iraq near the top of the list. I have no problem (and would not have in 2001) with Syria/Lybia being in the top 3, also.
Sudan and Somalia would only be on the list to the extent they were host to terrorist training grounds. Clearly, there isn't the governmental infrastructure to be any threat to us. I include piracy in that bucket, too.
I'd put Lebanon and Iran in a middle rung of places that could use cleaning up, but aren't (and weren't) a direct threat to us.
I would expect 4 stars to be briefed on those areas. I'd also expect them to be briefed on various China scenarios, Korean peninsula scenarios, and (in 2001) Russian scenarios in Chechnya and the Crimean. Throw in Panama and Suez canal issues, too.
Doesn't mean we plan on executing contingencies in those areas, but we should have something ready.
OneShotFOGE
Sharpshooter
The conflict in Syria. Theres like 4 warring parties here, and several want Assad gone. Last year the US wanted Assad out of Syria. I find it hard to believe that today they feel differently.
If one subscribes to the idea that it is the U.S. military's proper role (and the U.S. taxpayers' burden) to clean up every undemocratic cesspool on the planet, then this brand of foreign policy might make sense or seem appealing.
Even if you believe that, your misguided outlook is being exploited by people with a far less altruistic agenda. The last dozen years of war is being brought to you by the same people who gave us the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the ACA, the TSA, mass domestic spying, giant bailouts, exponential debt growth, and so much more.
They aren't keeping us in unending conflict because it is good for the USA, good for the world, or destined to promote freedom. Your wealth is being plundered and these target countries are slated to receive puppet governments that will be friendly to the advancement of world government.
Even if you believe that, your misguided outlook is being exploited by people with a far less altruistic agenda. The last dozen years of war is being brought to you by the same people who gave us the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the ACA, the TSA, mass domestic spying, giant bailouts, exponential debt growth, and so much more.
They aren't keeping us in unending conflict because it is good for the USA, good for the world, or destined to promote freedom. Your wealth is being plundered and these target countries are slated to receive puppet governments that will be friendly to the advancement of world government.
I'm as concerned about 1984-esque continuous war as the next guy.
But, we also have to recognize there may be continuous threats. In all honesty, if the choice is between full fledged Iraq-invasion style conflicts or the Cold War special-forces relatively-secret forays, I'd prefer the latter.
The reality is that there are mean people who want to make war. I don't love that the US is willing to fight them, but it is part of who we are. Frankly, it is part of what makes us American. When we stop fighting for freedom (as trite as that sounds), we will become less American.
Now, for me to be consistent, we need to fight for that freedom even if we don't like the results. Once Iraq was freed, if they wanted to elect a Muslim Brotherhood government, in free and fair elections, then that's on them.
OneShotFOGE
Sharpshooter
The F-22 strike cost US $79 million, which is more than the cost of the Indian Mars mission.
OneShotFOGE
Sharpshooter
If they did, we'd have a base there a lot sooner.
What if "fighting for freedom" is just a bumper sticker analysis of what the U.S. does overseas? What if the U.S. government's continued efforts were actually a way to undermine our freedom?
Americans are being inundated with paranoia and buried in debt. There's no way to come out of this a stronger, freer nation. What's happening is precisely the most effectual way to dismantle the USA as a 1st World superpower.
Having seen government from the inside, I stand solidly on the position that it (the US gov't at any level) isn't nearly organized enough or long-view-oriented to do that. I am comfortable with .gov's general incompetence for long range planning.
Agreed.
Well, I disagree with the first part, but somewhat agree with the second, but IMHO the "answer" to both is for us - in gov't and in USian society - to become more principled and more disciplined about those principles.
Only in foreign countries is "American" a demographic. Internally, there are too many permutations of characteristics for us to be lumped together. The only areas we can come anywhere near "unity" is in our principles. I actually believe that Ds/Rs/Ls have basically the same principles, but have varying degrees of adhering to them.
That's where the discipline comes in. We must be more disciplined, even if it is painful. "Too big to fail" should not exist in a country that believes in the principles of free market and is disciplined about it.
My issues with Obama's foreign policy vacuum is the lack of principles supporting the "policies." If he was principled, he could articulate why certain actions are necessary in some places, but not others. And ideally, he would be disciplined enough to abide by his principles.
Generally, at least GWB could articulate his principles (with small words) and was generally disciplined about them.
2ADMNLOVER
Grandmaster
Weak minded folks just can't let in the possibility that our guberment doesn't actually have our best interests in mind .
Those same folks that label this thread " tin foil " should research how the term " banana republic " came about and what our guberment / CIA was doing (on behalf of corporations ) , overthrowing democratically elected governments in places like Guatemala back in the 50's and are still doing today .
Let's assume that you are correct. There is no conspiracy to ruin us, it is happening by a series of unorganized coincidences. I do not understand the logic in giving this government -- characterized by corruption and stupidity -- more power to chase around "terrorists" and prosecute these loosely defined wars on ideology. It seems like an ineffectual, expensive mistake, carrying all sorts of undesired consequences.
I personally believe that there is too much at play to attribute everything to coincidence and incompetence. The architects of these plans are anything but imbeciles. Rumsfeld certainly wasn't.
Well, the power is there in the Constitution. We elect the people to wield it. We also have the power (sorta) to change it, but don't count on it.
The structure is good (IMHO). It is the quality of the people taking action that is questionable.
Have you met him? I have (albeit briefly). IMHO, hubris is a form of ignorance. He might be REALLY REALLY smart, but he is also somewhat blind to his own blind spots, if that makes sense.
or 
