For those who would support - or even tolerate - a war in Yemen, I have a simple two word question:

[Stinky The Clown]

"With what"

Our military is over taxed and under manned.

[tekisui]

1. With war contractors, of course.

We no longer need civilian armies. We just need for-profit mercenaries and drones.

[Moochy]

7. I've got it! We can borrow the money from EastAsia!

:think: We can borrow MORE money from EastAsia to Pay for the Mercenaries in our Just Wars™!

[slackmaster]

2. Bacon

[n2doc]

14. Don't make me drop one of these on yo' heads!

[HughMoran]

18. & eggs

:9

[berni_mccoy]

3. Yeah, I don't see that happening either. Not without a draft.

[mdmc]

4. mercenaries, of course

not that I support a war with Yemen..

[leftstreet]

5. Private contractors. Get with the program!

See how that works?

[jpak]

6. For those delusional enough to **dream** of a US invasion of Yemen to justify their fantasies

I say...

:rofl:

[provis99]

8. with the National Guard and Reserves.

Though I'm not sure how 40 and 50 year old soldiers will be able to keep up with teenage suicide bombers.

[gmoney]

9. with our vast armies of unemployed people?

[Oregone]

10. Conscription

[Don Caballero]

11. Diplomacy first

But all options must be on the table.

[StarfarerBill]

17. Again: cruise missiles do not constitute diplomacy.

Diplomacy consists of discussing matters in a sincere, rational manner, not lobbing warheads into impoverished countries...unless you subscribe to the Bush-Cheney school of diplomacy.

[Jazzgirl]

19. Who are you??!!??

I never heard so many happy shit responses from one person in my life. Do you work for the adminstration or what??!!??

[Don Caballero]

22. I believe that our President views the Yemeni Al Qaeda situation

the same as he views Iran aggressively acquiring nuclear weapons. If we take any option off the table they will sense our weakness.

[Oregone]

28. "sense our weakness"

WTF does that mean? Seriously. Do you think terrorists will perceive the US as not a military powerhouse if they rule out nuking a country? Does terrorist perceiving the US as a military powerhouse deter terrorism in the first place? Is the perception of a weaker entity going to lead to more terrorism? How do you know these things? What is the value of being perceived as absolutely strong with no weakness? What is the instant drawback of being perceived as a country who will not use any means necessary to kill those who oppose it? Is there a benefit to being perceived in such a manner?

WTF does that mean?

[Don Caballero]

30. It means that more and more attempts at terrorist attacks

will take place in the States. Working on probability, some of these attempts will succeed and kill fellow Americans. Our President is showing the world that he understands terrorists are operating in many different countries and they must be pursued regardless of territorial bounds.

[Oregone]

33. You didn't answer the questions

What is the value of not being perceived as "weak"? Does it deter terrorism like the death penalty deters murder? Is there a value in being perceived, conversely, as a nation who does not believe any Means justifies the Ends? Is there actual harm in being perceived as a nation who will use any means, across the entire globe, no matter the lives wasted, to accomplish our mission?

What is essentially the problem if a terrorist "senses our weakness" (understands that we have limits in terms of the chaos and death we will bring to bystanders)?

[donco6]

35. I doubt if Hamas views Israel as "weak". It hasn't stopped them yet.

So I'd love to hear the answer to your question, too. What is the value of not being perceived as "weak"? Wonder if we'll get an answer.

[Smashcut]

36. There is absolutely ZERO difference between what you just articulated and the Bush approach

to foreign policy.

Absolutely NONE.

[DJ13]

12. There will always be an unlimited amount of money for war

They can buy anything they need to wage another one.

Just dont expect the safety net for our poor to survive, war is more important.

[Jamastiene]

23. That's true. n/t

[LooseWilly]

13. With the proviso that the Mercenaries go IPO (in order to fix the economy on paper)... two birds.

Government spending (Keynesian solution) on military (WWII flashback) of a Free Market Nature (reaching across the aisle) that will provide private sector jobs, stimulate the stock market (Wall St. bailout #2, or 3, or 4, or whatever...), and thereby fix the economy when all that money begins to trickle down to the poor.

Win Win Win.

Rah Rah Rah.

(Budgets only have to balance on social programs...)

(p.s. I bet Blackwater, et. al., offer a nice health care package...)

[Xipe Totec]

15. The hard part is finding suitable targets

The expression "pounding sand" comes to mind.

[johnaries]

16. Am I missing something, Stinky? Who's advocating a war in Yemen?

We've launched a couple of cruise missiles strikes in cooperation of the Yemeni government. That's hardly war, and I personally haven't heard anyone calling for war.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. I had thought Stinky considered the US to be already 'at war' in Yemen

because it's supporting the Yemeni government - and I had replied to another thread of his on that basis. If he's saying that there will be a further escalation of US personnel there, and that would be 'war', I'd like to know why he thinks that will happen.

[Stinky The Clown]

43. Don't get me started

You're as far from an honest player as anyone I can think of.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Why, thank you, and I love you too

No, I'm being perfectly serious and honest. In your earlier thread, I thought you were objecting to the support the US government has already given the Yemeni government. That's a reasonable position for you to take, and I thought that meant you wanted Obama to withdraw that support (so I asked about how you viewed the parties in the current internal conflict in that country). But if you're now saying "there's no resources for it anyway", then you must be talking about future action (clearly there were the US resources for what has already happened). So it's possible that you don't object to what has happened so far.

It's be useful for understanding your threads to know if you do object to the action already taken I'd guess you do), and also to know what you expect the future involvement to be - because then we'd be able to answer your question of "what with"?

[Stinky The Clown]

45. I answered your question

I said we need to take what we get when we get it - after the local parties do whatever it is they're going to do.

My honest wish is for Saudi Arabia to worry about it and pay for it.

[panader0]

20. Parachute 100 valley girls from California in there

they'll give up in a week.

[redwitch]

21. Or 7 or 8 housewives from Orange County.

Or 3 or 4 from New Jersey.

[panader0]

24. Yeah--- maybe a coupla of bridezillas too.

[Brother Buzz]

25. Remember, troops are fungibile

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." - Rumsfeld

I'm sure Rummy would love to jump back into the cockpit and drive us into another quagmire.

[Sebastian Doyle]

26. Draft the cheerleaders?

Since I don't anticipate any of them volunteering.

[rucky]

27. With evangelists. n/t

[TheWraith]

29. Oh please. This "war with Yemen" crap is the biggest strawman DU has ever produced...

And that's saying something.

[StarfarerBill]

34. If there was a Republican in the White House, would that still be your response?

As history has shown, Democrats have led us into non-defensive wars as well.

[Moochy]

38. ..."DU has ever produced"

I think you think DU is more influential than it actually is. Search google news for Yemen. No hits from DU!

[notesdev]

31. and who is going to pay for it!?!?

[ashling]

32. Hessians

Xe Hessians

[Scurrilous]

37. Send in the clowns.

:thumbsup:

[Goldstein1984]

39. I see a fundamental bit of confusion here...

The myth started by Bush/Cheney that Al Qaeda attacked us because they hate our freedoms, then we attacked them because they attacked us.

Osama bin Laden told us why we were attacked in statements issued before the attack. The attacked the Pentagon because of our military presence in Saudi Arabia; they attacked the World Trade Center because our our economic imperialism; they would have attacked our government (legislative or executive) because of our support for Israel and the oppression of Palestinians.

We aren't in the Middle East because they attack us, they attack us because we are in the Middle East. The longer we stay there and the more of them we kill, the longer we will have to stay there and the more of them we will have to kill. While that is happening, they'll be killing us too.

For us to win, we'll have to kill every last one of them. For them to win, all they have to do is wait us out--either our willingness to send people to die, or our financial ability to do so, will run out eventually. This adversary has a different sense of time than we do. For them, the Crusades are still a current event.

[Cleita]

40. They will hire more mercenaries and our Congress will trip over themselves

to vote for more funding. There will be no hold outs like for meaningful health care. But there is the rub. Mercenaries are notoriously unreliable and are loyal only to the company or entity that hires them as long as they are getting paid. Unless Obama starts looking for other advisers that the Bush leftovers in the Pentagon, we are doomed.

[HughMoran]

41. Yes, that one person here who would support this

...needs to have the wrath of DU rain down upon him ;)

This is nearly as dumb as a war with Iran.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. DU isn't the limit of mankind