RWS, if I had a hornet's nest, I would simply fire up my old Bradley fighting vehicle and take care of the problem. But that's how we handle stuff around here.
I have noticed a lot of Moonbats here in the last few days, did you stir up a hornet's nest somewhere? They always try to pick on women, what's up with that?
Actually, TwoDogs, we are just supporting and discussing issues with our UPC colleague Sparkly. Our rightwing members, I have no doubt, will be along as soon as they have stopped posting comments on OUR blogs 
RWS, seriously, after Afghanistan I would have pursued alQaida into Pakistan, where there are estimated by Jane's magazine to be 20,000 graduates of their training camps in Karachi alone and where AlQaida are actually giving loans to tribal cheifs. Musharaff knows he needs the extremists approval to keep his seat and has done a fine balancing act of talking big while doing little to stop AlQaida and the Taliban who now own whole regions of his country. After that? Indonesia and the seas surrounding it where Lloyd's of London say much of the seed money for AlQaida investments comes from piracy operations.
btw, did you know that according to Jane's AlQaida now has a pension scheme for it's cadre?
Regards, C
Cernig, I wasn't actually talking about a couple of you, julia is the one that mainly comes to mind, and that damnable Erik. The Moonbat philosophy is not necessarily applicable to all on the Left.
And I have checked out the UPC, it seems that Sparkle might be a little outnumbered.
Cernig,
I know you aren't American, but you do realize that going into Pakistan would have caused the SAME reaction from the left over here. So other than making the point that the fight might have been better served going at it your way, it doesn't help the divide in our country over this. Not that I was asking for that, you understand. I realize you just answered it honestly, but I just wanted to point that out.
Two Dogs, I think that is why they asked me....
"As many here will agree I am no intellectual. As I have said many times, I am a simple woman and I try to look at things in the simplest way possible."
Not buying it. I've spent more than enough years in Texas to recognize the habitual "aw shucks" demeanor of native Texans. You're not fooling me.
Several of the smartest people I've ever met are Texans, and they all claimed to be ignorant fools. I finally figured it out -- in Texas, being underestimated is considered a strategic advantage.
An interesting corollary is that rich Texans (native Texans) make a point of acting more like common folk than most common folk. You can sit in a hill-country bar talking to a mega-millionare, and think you're talking to a plumber.
So, don't try the self-deprecating remarks with me, sister. I'm not fooled. Here's one Yankee who thinks you're pretty damn smart.
awww shucks.....
"If you had been President after 9-11 what would you have done after Afghanistan?"
Duh. Forget hornets, let's consider fire ants. When I was a Texas resident, I would patrol my yard every couple of weeks for fire ant mounds. Upon discovery, I would KILL THE LITTLE BASTARDS with Amdro. Either that, or they sting me and my wife and kids when we're just trying to use our own yard.
And, by the way, I didn't mind so much getting stung in the ass by a scorpion when I sat down on the chaise longue by my pool. At least a scorpion is a native Texas pest. They belong there.
Fire ants, on the other hand, are foreign intruders. They just all deserve to be killed.
Michael,
........ I like the way you think.
Hi RWS,
I also realise going into Pakistan would have inflamed the Pakistani community in the UK, where they are the largest minority. I don't care, I just call it as I see it regardless of party politics. I'm my own man, not someone elses.
(BTW, I don't think you are correct in the motives you ascribe to ALL the Left, just some of it - maybe a majority but from my discussions I don't think so. I don't put up with those who who do think like that. Then again, there are charges that the entire Right are racist bigots but really it only applies to Michael and his ilk. I don't know how you put up with them.)
Regards, C
Let's just say the majority of the left would have felt that way.
Trust me on this.
Cernig, regarding Pakistan... you do realize they've got nukes, right? I'd be verrrrrrry careful about invading any country that has that sort of armament. A toasted carrier group would not be good at all.
Wonderduck:
Which is why any US carrier group has AWACS. It's one thing to have nukes. Quite another to have effective delivery systems.
Building a nuke is actually pretty easy. Effectively targeting it is a real challenge.
Yeah, Duckie, but I was taught that bravery is knowing the right thing to do is scary but doing it anyway because it's the right thing to do.
One of the reasons I've described Pakistan as a greater threat than Saddam's Iraq is that many analysts and much of the evidence suggests that they were complicit in and aided Khan's nuclear proloiferation...and that they have started it up again after refusing to hand him over to the US.
Another is that the Pakistani intelligence service, or portions of it, appears to be acting as a channeler of funds for the Taliban.
Both of those come from Jane's, so I regard them as pretty solid. Any military type will tell you about Jane's rep.
Regards, C
(PS Is it weird discussing this with a socialist who isn't soft on terror but still thinks invading Iraq was way off track? I suspect I'm shaking some of y'alls cliches here)
Here's a link on Pakistans approval of Khan's nuclear sales. Jane's is a subscription site but DefenceTech, part of Military.com, has the goods.
http://www.defensetech.org/archi...ves/
000797.html
Regards, C
"I suspect I'm shaking some of y'alls cliches here)"
Don't fashion yourself. Pakistan's problematical government is a well known issue.
"I am a simple woman and I try to look at things in the simplest way possible."
Sparkle, the reason everyone has an opinion about politics -- the reason everyone feels entitled to an opinion about politics -- is that politics is supposed to be about right and wrong, and right and wrong are very simple matters about 99.999% of the time. If it were otherwise, it would be fatally unjust of God to expect us low creatures to grasp them.
Keep the faith, dear.
"Which is why any US carrier group has AWACS. It's one thing to have nukes. Quite another to have effective delivery systems."
You're probably thinking of the AEGIS missile defense radars here, not AWACS. And yes, that's true, but y'know, the nuke-throwing country would only need to get lucky once... and there's more than a little debate over if the AEGIS/Standard Missile combination can handle a ballistic target, Tom Clancy not withstanding.
As part of the left who thought going into Iraq was a dumb idea for strategic reasons, my plan for what to do next as of Dec. 31, 2001 would be fairly simple.
Make sure that the good rhetoric of democracy, institution building, expanding economic opportunity etc. for Afganistan was followed up upon instead of allowing the country to descend back into a narco state because opium production is by far the most valuable activity possible under current circumstances. I would also put some severe pressure on Pakistan to purge their ISI, and to actually go after Al Quaida, even with the possibility of a coup against Musharaff ---
At that point, I'll shift some attention to sea lane patrol (such as the Horn of Africa Task Force which was instituted in mid 2002 by the Bush Administration) and Indonesia as Cernig noted and really started putting pressure on the Saudi government to stop funding the Wahibbist strain of Islam. At the same time, I'll develop an effective energy policy that could reduce US usage of petroleum by 10-15% over the course of 5 years.
That would be how I would do it
Wonderduck:
You're right, I was thinking of AEGIS. I guess I've gotton to a point in life where there are just more acronyms than I can handle.
Few things about your analogy:
I find that strapping a bomb to a baby with down syndrome is a terrible thing to do. I stop short of the whole "personification of evil" bit, however. This is for two reasons: for religious and philosophical reasons I cannot beleive a person can be inherantly evil, or ever become completely evil. Secondly, I find the label "evil" to be highly dangerous. Doing so seems to allow ourselves to adapt an ends-justify-the-means policy towards those labelled evil, namely to kill them. I find that a mindset in which one accepts that all humankind exists on a spectrum of varying degrees of right and wrong, and that all humankind is caught between a constant interplay between right and wrong, serves as a much more pragmatic and valid view of the world.
Next, I find the hornet's nest analogy to be ineffective int describing our current situation in the war on terror. If I were confronted with the hornet problem, I would kill the hornets. But terrorists, no matter how terrifying they are, are still people, and I will not condone murder.
LWG, It's a nice sentiment to be against killing no matter what, but I doubt you would feel that way if you had a loved one about to be tortured or murdered in front of you. I think you would kill that person before he could murder the one you love. You just would.
I hope that it is simply youth talking when you say you don't see strapping a bomb on a down syndrome child as evil. (I know you don't like me to refer to your youth, sorry) But it simply is evil. If your generation can't define evil and call it as they see it and then fight against it , then you will find yourself one day being tortured and oppressed by the very same people you refused to fight.
fester, your plan sounds good but some of it is dreaming. How would you "put pressure" on Pakistan and Saudi? And how would you reduce our energy consumption?
I mean I can say that I would "reduce abortions" if I were President, but that really isn't under my control, is it?
Our govt. has to deal with reality here.
It has nothing to do with finding myself unable to differentiate between right and wrong. It has to do with the impracticality of the term "evil" and its danger in uses of the subhumanizing of opponants, a la the Nazis.
Also, regarding the killing of a loved one in front of me: a life would not have to be taken in that situation. One can defend himself without resorting to murder.
Actually RWS, Pakistan is very easy for the US to pressure. Just offer to go public with a switch of preferred military ally to India if Musharaff doesn't toe the line. Threaten to tell the world India will get all the US new military tech, not Pakistan. He knows his regime is over if the populace of Pakistan see that happening.
Saudi, again, the big lever is arms sales. It's a tougher nut to crack though, I agree.
The easiest way to reduce US gas consumption is to retune all your cars. Americans like their cars to go Vrrooommm, Europeans mostly like them to be silent. Guess which gives a better fuel economy? The same Japanese built car that gets 20 mpg in the US gets 27 mpg in the UK. For those light on math, thats a 35% improvement in consumption with no new technology. But yeah, y'all gotta lose the huge SUVs and pickups, or convert them to turbo-deisels.
Regards, C
I have no problem with retuning cars as you suggest. But it is a BIG turn around. Bush is doing his best to promote the Hybride.(sp?) We Americans do love our cars, no doubt. But if someone can make the case well enough without bringing in nonsense regarding the pollution of cars, then we change some minds.
I will say though, that if what you have in mind is the tonka toys they call cars in Italy (We went there last year) then forget it. Some of us actually have children to carry around.
Sparkle: Some forms of pressure on Pakistan: Withhold major arms shipments (see the F-16 purchase) and more importantly, withhold spare parts shipments as negative means of reinformcement. Positive means of reinforcement to take some of the pressure off of Musharaff would have been to reduce tariffs/eliminate quotas on basic textiles and leather goods, cooperation on nuclear security strategies (keep an eye on loose nukes etc.), push for entrance into WTO etc. There are levers available to create a different incentive structure.
For Saudi Arabia, maybe not have the top 3-5 officials of that government treated as long lost brothers every time that they come over, have that government's actions towards its population reported the same way that we report other countrie (no Saudi Arabia is not an aspiring democracy), getting serious about reducing oil consumption (hey you can do that by removing the tax incentive to buy super heavy vehicles, increased tax incentives for high efficiency or hybrid vehicles, increase CAFE standards by 10% (or 2.5 mpg) and transferring some road construction funding to transit funding) there are ways to pressure the Saudis.
I really can not spell right now --- long day at work --- but the contention that Iraq was the next logical step on dismantling and destroying the Al-Quaida network is in my opinion absurd when the ISI of Pakistan was indirectly supporting Al-Quaida via their very close relationship to the Taliban or that the Saudi government has had a devil's bargain with their extremists to fund other extremists through private donations to charity and turning a blind eye.
Some things that Bush administration has done have been damn good ideas (Horn of Africa Task Force), others, such as the PSI are good ideas, but I as a believer in multilateral institutions would have set it up differently. However pulling out Special Forces, pulling out infantry, pulling out CA companies from Afganistan to prep for and now deploy to Iraq does not fall anywhere close to being a good idea.
Sparkle posts:
"So let's go with that analogy.
If you discovered a hornets nest in your back yard and it stung your children badly, would you leave it alone? After all if you leave the hornet's nest alone, they are still hornets and they aren't leaving. They are breeding and making more nests and becoming more of a danger. Soon, they are in your house swarming and then you have a much bigger problem and have to deal with it in a much bigger way. "
Analogies like this are kind of silly and pointless, no matter who raises them. And the hypothetical "If you had been President after 9-11 what would you have done after Afghanistan?" is just as silly and pointless.
First reason why this is a silly exercise: Hornets are beneficial insects - they're part of God's great plan. They go after other insects. They're not predators against people. The only risk of being stung comes from annoying them, from threatening their home. Leave 'em alone, and everyone will be fine.
If there's a hornets nest in your yard, staying clear of the area is usually enough. If they've set up housekeeping in an 'inconvenient' spot (like near a door or where there's high traffic - less likely, since they don't want to be hassled), there are plenty of sprays and traps available to help clear them out. They may or may not come back.
Now, here's where the hornets nest analogy actually comes in handy. You've spotted a hornets nest in your yard. It's well-defined and contained.
Your military-service aged son decides one day to whack at it - who knows why? He doesn't use an approved spray that'll let him take out the nest from a distance - he just decides to whack at it with a stick.
Stupid kid.
Now, that really pisses off the hornets, who swarm and sting him several times, as well as his buddy from England who's standing nearby and was egging him on.
What do you do about your kid, who should have known better? Do you grab him by the scruff of the neck and ask, "What the hell where you thinking? I told you to leave that nest alone!"
Because, you see, if you want to say that Iraq is a hornets nest, then what do you say to the numbskulls who went kicking at it without thinking things through? I mean, what the hell were they thinking?
A hornet's nest that is well defined and contained.
Dirk, now that IS just silly.
The terrorists were neither contained or defined. Please.
fester, you make good points. I guess we shall have to wait and see if the idea worked or not.
what is done is done.
After 9/11 the left wouldn't have done anything. They would have let the United Nations handle the problem. But there I go, repeating myself.
WonderDuck.... an nuke throwing country might get lucky once.... but it would be the last bit of luck they ever had before we turned them into a radioactive parking lot.
Funnily enough, Cro, I advocated nuking Tora Bora and it's environs to make sure of getting Osama. Now tell me about how all lefties are soft on terror again?
Regards, C
Sparkle sez " A hornet's nest that is well defined and contained.
Dirk, now that IS just silly."
Proving that Sparkle knows as little about hornets as she does about pretty much everything else she ventures an opinion on here.
Thank you.
Only a matter of time before the next Down's Syndrome kid shows up with a knapsack nuke- whatcha gonna do then, huh?
If I had a hornets nest in my back yard, I would destroy it, or at least encourage the hornets to move on to another location - making the current habitation uninhabital.
All that to say, yes -- what GWB did was the right thing going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Now as to if Iraq was correct because of the "War on Terrorism" I'm still sitting on the fence on that one. BUT -- making terrorists hornets .. now, I don't want them in my yard, house, or close to me at all. (God, why is there hornets please?)
We must protect ourselves and those we are responsibile for, ie: those that can't protect themselves.
"If you had been President after 9-11 what would you have done after Afghanistan?"
Nuke the Middle East. Take a loss on the oil (get Canada to supply it), and stage a huge Hiroshima style barbecue where the Middle East used to be.
Rationally, that's a bad plan. But whenever someone brings up 9/11, I get all hornet-like (horney??).
Great blog, RWS. Found you through the Cotillion.
RG
M. Savage, anyone?
With the original question of
"If you had been President after 9-11 what would you have done after Afghanistan?"
Easy one this...
I would have regrouped our resourses, maximised intel, gone very quiet with the press inorder to seek out direct terrorist threats... then take full force surgical action against them without warning. This would include vast covert operations - after all, no need to advertise as we're not selling anything but a cure.
Not play around getting blind sided by a country that really means nothing to us at all.
America sleeps no better now than it did before Iraq
Commenting by HaloScan
