Alaska Draws Ire From The Left, Time To Cut Them Loose.

[CJS3]

Agree with Tom. Russia is currently not up to the task.  Secondly the US and Canada would never want the Russians on our side of the pond. Third, Alaskans are tougher than the Finns and better armed. Finns do make better boot knives but that's about it.

I actually think HI would leave before AK.

We could actually solve ALL the fed's financial problems overnight if we just "sold" HI to China. The way the state gov is there, no one would really notice, and all they would really have to do is change flags.

[fightingquaker13]

We could actually solve ALL the fed's financial problems overnight if we just "sold" HI to China. The way the state gov is there, no one would really notice, and all they would really have to do is change flags.

The Japanese own most of it though, it could get complicated.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Long as the check clears , let them sort it out  

[JC5123]

FQ13 who is sadly reminded that we aren't doing a much better job in Afghanistan than they did.

Only because of your said "PC Idiots" who won't allow us to prosecute a REAL war. I have said this before, that if our military were allowed to fight the way they are trained to, we would have been finished in Afghanistan inside of a year, and we would have never needed to go back into Iraq. The world knows that we are the most humane military in human history and they exploit that fact. If we still fought like we did before Vietnam, no country, dictator, terrorist organization in their right mind would DARE attack us. Because wherever the enemy was being harbored, they know they would get completely leveled. No sane country would harbor terrorists for fear of our reprisal, and we would not be talking to Iran, and N. Korea...We would be bombing the stuffing out of them.

As candidate for foreign policy adviser, my recommendation is simple. Attack us, we WILL, without hesitation or remorse, obliterate you and every country that you share a border with.

[JC5123]

The Afghans today = Us in the late 1700's.  No way we should have one against the superpower of the day,  but we did through grit and determination. 

Also remember that the Afghans had the support of the CIA, and spec ops. They were actually getting their butts handed to them by the Soviets until we started sneaking in Stingers.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Only because of your said "PC Idiots" who won't allow us to prosecute a REAL war. I have said this before, that if our military were allowed to fight the way they are trained to, we would have been finished in Afghanistan inside of a year, and we would have never needed to go back into Iraq. The world knows that we are the most humane military in human history and they exploit that fact. If we still fought like we did before Vietnam, no country, dictator, terrorist organization in their right mind would DARE attack us. Because wherever the enemy was being harbored, they know they would get completely leveled. No sane country would harbor terrorists for fear of our reprisal, and we would not be talking to Iran, and N. Korea...We would be bombing the stuffing out of them.

As candidate for foreign policy adviser, my recommendation is simple. Attack us, we WILL, without hesitation or remorse, obliterate you and every country that you share a border with.

Actually its not the PC idiots that set the ROE. Its generals like Patreaus.There are two schools of thought. One is the Colin Powell "End the War" school. The other is the "Counter insurgency, hearts and minds" school. The latter wants to win over civilians by seperating them from the insurgents, buying them off and isolating the BGs. This worked in western Iraq where the Sunni elders got sick of Al Queda.
Its what we are trying now in Afghanistan. I doubt it will be as successful since the locals ARE the Talban. Still, this doctrine means limiting collateral damage as strategically necessary, even if it means more casulties and lost opportunities to kill BGs. Its not, in and of itself, a bad idea. I just don't think it will work here. I am with you in that we should have settled for a quick punitive campaign and gotten the hell out. Now? Damned if I know what to do. I would highly reccomend Sebastian Junger's book "War". Its a year long documentary account of a platoon of the 173rd airborne at a fire base in Afghsanistan. Its a riveting read and gives a grunts eye view of this debate.
FQ13

[JC5123]

Actually its not the PC idiots that set the ROE. Its generals like Patreaus.There are two schools of thought. One is the Colin Powell "End the War" school. The other is the "Counter insurgency, hearts and minds" school. The latter wants to win over civilians by seperating them from the insurgents, buying them off and isolating the BGs. This worked in western Iraq where the Sunni elders got sick of Al Queda.
Its what we are trying now in Afghanistan. I doubt it will be as successful since the locals ARE the Talban. Still, this doctrine means limiting collateral damage as strategically necessary, even if it means more casulties and lost opportunities to kill BGs. Its not, in and of itself, a bad idea. I just don't think it will work here. I am with you in that we should have settled for a quick punitive campaign and gotten the hell out. Now? Damned if I know what to do. I would highly reccomend Sebastian Junger's book "War". Its a year long documentary account of a platoon of the 173rd airborne at a fire base in Afghsanistan. Its a riveting read and gives a grunts eye view of this debate.
FQ13

I think you missed the point of my idea here. Think about a class full of kids and you have say 2-3 troublemakers. Everytime one of them starts something you punish them and six kids that sit next to them. The other six have done nothing wrong, but are being punished because they MIGHT have been aware of the disruption. Next time, they will see this kid starting up and shut him down because THEY don't want to get into trouble. You can start in about soverignty and countries rights, but the psycology works. Especially if everyone knows up front how it works. As a benefit to this plan, we don't have to be the police of the world because countries will, out of fear of us, start cleaning up their own neighborhoods.

[fightingquaker13]

I think you missed the point of my idea here. Think about a class full of kids and you have say 2-3 troublemakers. Everytime one of them starts something you punish them and six kids that sit next to them. The other six have done nothing wrong, but are being punished because they MIGHT have been aware of the disruption. Next time, they will see this kid starting up and shut him down because THEY don't want to get into trouble. You can start in about soverignty and countries rights, but the psycology works. Especially if everyone knows up front how it works. As a benefit to this plan, we don't have to be the police of the world because countries will, out of fear of us, start cleaning up their own neighborhoods.

Either that, or you turn those six and their friends against you as they won't take your crap for something they didn't do, and start siding with the troublemakers. Soon, you are no longer in control. Your punishments get more harsh out of frustration. The fence sitters join them as they feel you are unfair, and you are in charge only as long as you are facing the class. Every other moment? They are working against you, even if it is to their detreminent, as you have unified them by giving them a common enemy. I'm a teacher, I've seen it happen. Once they hate you more than they fear you? Its game over, you lose.
FQ13

[JC5123]

Either that, or you turn those six and their friends against you as they won't take your crap for something they didn't do, and start siding with the troublemakers. Soon, you are no longer in control. Your punishments get more harsh out of frustration. The fence sitters join them as they feel you are unfair, and you are in charge only as long as you are facing the class. Every other moment? They are working against you, even if it is to their detreminent, as you have unified them by giving them a common enemy. I'm a teacher, I've seen it happen. Once they hate you more than they fear you? Its game over, you lose.
FQ13

It worked for the Romans. At least until they destroyed themselves from the inside. Which brings us back on topic. I don't see any downside for Alaska to break off. I think that they should take Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, West Virginia, and Texas with them. As these are the only states not drowning in debt.

 http://www.mybudget360.com/fiscal-situation-of-50-states-combined-budget-gaps-estimated-at-350-billon-for-2010-and-2011/

[twyacht]

The world held its collective breath after 9/11. Quadaffi, was the first one that said "Not Me Man"....At that point the United States,

COULD have done what we used to do, and unleashed HELL!. Than went to the U.N. and simply stated, "We were attacked, innocents were slaughtered, and we are striking back. PERIOD". End of story, no more explanations.

Walked out, and left it at that.

But,. nooooooooooooo.......We waited, played the UN/ build a coalition game, had armchair Generals coordinate "Rules Of Engagement"...wanted to "Nation Build"...

This is BS and we know it. Too bad shock & awe ended so soon.