Terrorist attack on Saudi oil

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I've never liked arming the enemy of my enemy. If a cause justifies the use of force and violence, we should do it ourselves; else, leave it alone. Also, when violence is justified, it should be as quick and fierce as possible to end it as quickly as possible.

That's a good point. Unless there are some mutual strategic interests that would lead to a long-term relationship between the parts involved, it's quite dangerous to share military resources. And even though I believe in peace through superior firepower, getting the USA involved in so many conflicts between third-parties becomes pointless to some extent while some improvements at the home front could lead to a lesser dependence on supplies from war-torn zones abroad.

[Xist]

I drove Army trucks in Afghanistan. I cannot tell you whether we should have been there, just that we did everything we could to help the good guys and hunt the bad guys.

While it seems like most people say they were always against invading Afghanistan, there was overwhelming support at the time. How many politicians were against it?

Bernie Sanders.

I hate to think of what it would take for popular support for another war, or for a decisive victory.

We never had one of those in Afghanistan (or Iraq).

Wars are supposed to boost the economy, but that sure did not seem to happen, either.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Xist

While it seems like most people say they were always against invading Afghanistan, there was overwhelming support at the time.

I remember, there was a much greater support for a military operation in Afghanistan right after 9/11 than 2 years later in Iraq. Well, even though I don't consider such operations to be a mistake at all, I do believe the average Americans could take a look into options to reduce the dependence on oil. Not only opening their minds to engine efficiency and other fuel-saving features that serve right for everyone else abroad, but also for biofuels. Even if a war ends up being effectively necessary, a lesser dependence for resources from a war-torn zone at the home front is desirable, and might become a valuable asset even when it would seem unlikely for the USA to engage in such war.

[freebeard]

I do believe the average Americans could take a look into options to reduce the dependence on oil. Not only opening their minds to engine efficiency and other fuel-saving features that serve right for everyone else abroad, but also for biofuels.

The average American had little leverage, but the (much despised ) capitalists looked ahead and looked around and exploited shale oil with new technology. Now the USofA doesn't need overpriced oil from the Middle East and we slowly disentangle from there.

Originally Posted by Xist

I hate to think of what it would take for popular support for another war, or for a decisive victory.

We never had one of those in Afghanistan (or Iraq).

Or, as I recall, Vietnam. So war has become unpossible. It's moved into Internet and weather and space. Girls Und Panzer will remain a fantasy.

[Xist]

At least we won in Korea!

[redpoint5]

I understand the complexity well enough (still poorly) to know why we muck about with things like indirectly fighting the USSR in Vietnam, or storming Afghanistan. I'm sure I was as hawkish following 9/11 as anyone, but I was also more naive then. It's easy to rally support to punch the enemy when they hurt us so badly, but we also have to be pragmatic about it too. Are we winning if we kill a bunch of bad guys but now can't take toothpaste on airplanes, get frisked, miss flights, etc... and those bad guys are replaced with new bad guys?

Bin Laden might have spearheaded the attacks, but it was all Saudi men that did the dirty work. I don't consider the Saudi's to be our allies because they don't share enough of US values. We should be less tolerant of bad behavior from our allies, just as we should be less tolerant of bad behavior from those closest to us (starting with ourselves).

As I said with Iraq, I'd have sent bombs to Hussain the moment he broke the peace treaty by kicking out weapons inspectors. No need to invent WMD to justify taking him out. He's provided enough direct reasons without needing to invent new ones.

Bad ideas like Communism are doomed to fail, and I take a Regan view of fighting it; to simply point out how terrible things are in places that adopt it, and how great we've got things. Let bad ideas fail on their own. If liberty and democracy and free markets is a bad idea, they would fail.

That said, I'm not an isolationist. When people are being murdered by their governments unjustly, that's intolerable. Hard to say how much we should expect people to defend themselves, and how much to intervene though.

[freebeard]

At least we won in Korea!

That was only a 'police action'. And according to General Patton we lost the 2nd World War.

I didn't buy into 9/11 from the get-go. I watched that flag atop the 2nd World Trade Center building drop straight as a plumb bob accelerating at 1g, and thought what are those odds?

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by Xist

I drove Army trucks in Afghanistan. I cannot tell you whether we should have been there, just that we did everything we could to help the good guys and hunt the bad guys.

There were no good guys there. There were bad guys we didn't like, and enemies of theirs that we picked to call good guys. Expedient if you want to hit the bad guys you don't like and need some diplomatic cover, but not really sustainable.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

That was only a 'police action'. And according to General Patton we lost the 2nd World War.

I didn't buy into 9/11 from the get-go. I watched that flag atop the 2nd World Trade Center building drop straight as a plumb bob accelerating at 1g, and thought what are those odds?

I say we test it in full scale. Or at least half scale.

[redpoint5]

Material stress can propagate at faster than the speed of sound (in air). If it's a concrete structure, the stresses can be applied at the speed of sound in concrete (whatever that is). Collapse speed would be carried out by the acceleration of gravity (1G).

Following Occam's Razor, the buildings were most likely destroyed the way we observed them; structural failure following intense heat from jet fuel burning.

How fast can a Prince Rupert Drop structurally fail?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe-f4gokRBs