There are a few good observations there.
A few random points:
"World policeman" is not an enviable position. But at this point, we're all the world's got.
The "Perception" trick requires that your enemy have no intelligence operations at all. Keep that in mind.
The Soviets were not a paper tiger. This is another history "rewrite" of the Cold War. How many nuclear missiles do you need to be considered dangerous?
Deterrence requires convincing your enemy you will attack and win. At this point, your side is doing everything it can to convince our enemies that we can be beaten. Easily. Deterrence also requires that your enemy is sane. Would the Soviets have blown up the WTC?
A side question:
Where do you put the bar for "imminent threat?" An actual attack on another city? Something less? It's becoming obvious from liberal discussion of Iran that even a country actually building WMD and threatening to use it somehow falls far below whatever bar they're using.
Current Events » in reply to peace is good...
Now, on the second part of your post...
The whole thread (49 posts)
- Absolutely devastating, from "Time". America's Broken-Down Army
- A commentary on this
- Somehow I don't think you would like what it would take to win.
- Where are my eagles?
- Don't be shy, tell us what you really feel
- The "Peace Dividend."
- re: The military is not the solution anymore
- Give peace a chance
- Stealth mode: run silent, run deep
- Now explain that in light of Bush's 6 years of getting everything for which he's asked.
- The "Peace Dividend."
- Don't be shy, tell us what you really feel