Nato strike 'kills Saif al-Arab Gaddafi', Libya says

[greg334]

Intell I can understand to a point, but a contingent force to deter an action by a country like the Soviet Union or China towards FILL IN THE BLANK does not make sense in today's age.

Trust is one thing, I don't trust them too but I also know that they benefit from being trading partners more than adversaries. IF we are to gather intel of Russia and China, then the use of the troops spending tax dollars we don't have to protect a country that is rich and has a capable military makes less sense.

We can put troops on the ground within 48 hours in mass, while within 24, we can be in the area. With the real threat being south of us at this moment, not in Libya, China or with NK, we have to decide whether we want to continue to be the unfunded worlds police or to start worrying about ourselves and our national interest within our border.

Libya is a problem in so much as it isn't our problem until we decided to involve ourselves with it. The one's who should be standing alone with this are the arab nations who want to oust Gadafi, and those who felt threaten by cutting off of their oil - the UK and Italy. The same reasoning that is applied to our troops in SK and Germany can be applied to NATO, the usefulness of our involvement with NATO was gone when the EU established their own military organization so why are we spending the money to be involved?

 

[layoutshooter]

Intell I can understand to a point, but a contingent force to deter an action by a country like the Soviet Union or China towards FILL IN THE BLANK does not make sense in today's age.

Trust is one thing, I don't trust them too but I also know that they benefit from being trading partners more than adversaries. IF we are to gather intel of Russia and China, then the use of the troops spending tax dollars we don't have to protect a country that is rich and has a capable military makes less sense.

We can put troops on the ground within 48 hours in mass, while within 24, we can be in the area. With the real threat being south of us at this moment, not in Libya, China or with NK, we have to decide whether we want to continue to be the unfunded worlds police or to start worrying about ourselves and our national interest within our border.

Libya is a problem in so much as it isn't our problem until we decided to involve ourselves with it. The one's who should be standing alone with this are the arab nations who want to oust Gadafi, and those who felt threaten by cutting off of their oil - the UK and Italy. The same reasoning that is applied to our troops in SK and Germany can be applied to NATO, the usefulness of our involvement with NATO was gone when the EU established their own military organization so why are we spending the money to be involved?

I don't know where you get the idea that we can move troops that quickly. We don't have the aircraft to do it for one. You cannot move armored divisions to overseas sites in 2 days. NOT POSSIBLE. Never has been. You COULD put light infantry in using most of the civilian airline fleet but they would be chopped to pieces as soon they hit the ground.

As to NATO, it is now more of a political group than military. I have NO problem leaving NATO, the UN either.

Who is going to protect the intell operations overseas? What would you plan be for that?

I have little doubt, none in fact, that IF China and or Russia thought for one second that they could quickly defeat us in a military engagement, they would.

We should have NEVER gone in to Libya. HUGE mistake. None of our business. Mexico is more of an issue for us. That would not even be one IF we were to seal the border. Just as the civil war in Libya is none of our business, neither is the one in Mexico.

 

[greg334]

I don't know where you get the idea that we can move troops that quickly. We don't have the aircraft to do it for one. You cannot move armored divisions to overseas sites in 2 days. NOT POSSIBLE. Never has been. You COULD put light infantry in using most of the civilian airline fleet but they would be chopped to pieces as soon they hit the ground.

From the US Army. I said troops, I didn't say what kind or how many just troops.

As to NATO, it is now more of a political group than military. I have NO problem leaving NATO, the UN either.

I think my problem with NATO is the Soviets are gone and former Soviet countries have joined.

Who is going to protect the intell operations overseas? What would you plan be for that?

Don't know, when I become the head of the NSA or CIA, I shoot you over an email telling you my plans. Beside that, we operate in other countries where our military does not have a presence.

I have little doubt, none in fact, that IF China and or Russia thought for one second that they could quickly defeat us in a military engagement, they would.

I think they can RIGHT NOW because we are fighting on three fronts, have a peace keeping engagement in a couple more and have a contingency group manning a DMZ that is not our problem. OUTSIDE of the few military talking heads on the entertainment shows, a few other very smart generals and such have suggested that our engagement in Libya has shown some of our 'enemies' where were are going in regards of the use of force, remember Russian and China isn't doing this stuff, they don't have troops stationed all over the world so that should say something about our military policy.

We should have NEVER gone in to Libya. HUGE mistake. None of our business. Mexico is more of an issue for us. That would not even be one IF we were to seal the border. Just as the civil war in Libya is none of our business, neither is the one in Mexico.

I agree

 

[layoutshooter]

"Don't know, when I become the head of the NSA or CIA, I shoot you over an email telling you my plans. Beside that, we operate in other countries where our military does not have a presence. "

Greg, these are BIG sites, staffed by hundreds or even thousands of people. MOSTLY military, not civilian. Not armed. I am NOT talking about covert ops. I am talking the meat and potato everyday tech type intell. No other way to do it. No other places to do it. It has to be done. NSA or CIA have little to do with those ops other than through directions. MOST intell is NOT covert. You can't hide those places.

 

[greg334]

It begs the question is it all that really important to have an expenditure of BILLIONS to gather information WHEN we do not have the money?

The problem isn't with the need to gather info but rather the involvement - directly or indirectly - as an occupying force to deter things that are not important to our country now or in the future.

Here are a couple examples.

Iran is a threat to Israel but we can't occupy Israel nor can we occupy Iraq, Syria, Jordon or Egypt. SO we are sitting in Saudi, Qatar and UAE but that means that we may not be allowed to intervene if Israel is attacked. Our intel gathering capabilities in Saudi is limited because of their wish and desire not to have us collecting info while our Iraqi intel is going to have to wind down because of the change in their country so what are we really doing now?

Germany has no real threat externally, it is all internal and terrorist based. So our troops who were there to fend off the Soviets are not needed. We can still operate our intel groups there but troops ... not really. The expense doesn't outweigh the benefit.

ALSO thinking about it, SK is a pretty stable country, we can have those remain there and have others man the DMZ OR have SK pay for our troops 100%.

 

[layoutshooter]

It begs the question is it all that really important to have an expenditure of BILLIONS to gather information WHEN we do not have the money?

The problem isn't with the need to gather info but rather the involvement - directly or indirectly - as an occupying force to deter things that are not important to our country now or in the future.

Here are a couple examples.

Iran is a threat to Israel but we can't occupy Israel nor can we occupy Iraq, Syria, Jordon or Egypt. SO we are sitting in Saudi, Qatar and UAE but that means that we may not be allowed to intervene if Israel is attacked. Our intel gathering capabilities in Saudi is limited because of their wish and desire not to have us collecting info while our Iraqi intel is going to have to wind down because of the change in their country so what are we really doing now?

Germany has no real threat externally, it is all internal and terrorist based. So our troops who were there to fend off the Soviets are not needed. We can still operate our intel groups there but troops ... not really. The expense doesn't outweigh the benefit.

ALSO thinking about it, SK is a pretty stable country, we can have those remain there and have others man the DMZ OR have SK pay for our troops 100%.

It is FAR cheaper to have good intell and head off problems than to not have it, get caught with your pants down and have to react. The laws of radio propagation REQUIRE that certain types of sites be placed in the EXACT areas that they are in. We NEED that intell.

Again, who protects the intell groups? Just leave them unprotected? I would not have felt very good about that. I doubt that many would. They would be open targets for every wack job group in the world.

SK SHOULD be covering more of the costs.