This article has been posted to DoctorZin’s New News Blog! 
Posted on 08/17/2004 6:04:06 PM PDT by wagglebee
Muhamad Lauskas ping
"were carrying a highly-detailed map of the country area of Trimdon"
That will be an Ordanance Survey Explorer series map - I have those. I wonder how long before they are banned? :-)
However the BBC are reporting Italian police defused a bomb near where Blair has been on vacation in Italy.
That`s what I was going to say! Deported? WHAT?
Either they are following them or letting the Lithuanians question them, I doubt they are quite so PC.
Must be a slow day at Australia News.com. How does this equal Plot to Kill Tony Blair Thwarted?
I'm trying to make a larger point to you: occupation isn't the only solution.
Occupation is our *preferred* solution, but it isn't our only option.
If you view our military in terms of how many nations we can forcibly occupy, you'll quickly discover that our military is stretched thin.
But that's a false picture.
We don't have to occupy a conquered nation. We don't have to let any subjugated leaders live free from imprisonment in any conquered country, and we can *always* reconquer any nation that acts up again after we've left.
In other words, we can view the military situation from the perspective of how many nations can we successfully "invade and conquer", rather than "invade and occupy".
And from that perspective, we aren't stretched thin at all. Our military can roll through nation after nation. Technically, no one can stop us from coming and going.
So while the traditional view that we must occupy every nation that we conquer is certainly our *preferred* solution, we aren't limited to that theory of operations alone.
There is another option. We can invade, conquer, leave, and re-invade if necessary. This option isn't preferred because it is the bloodier option. It is heavy-handed.
But that doesn't mean that it is improbable or non-feasible.
Ergo, if we need to conquer more nations, we can do so by applying the above theory of "invade, leave, and re-invade if needed" instead of the more traditional "invade once and occupy forever" theory.
If we need to be heavy-handed, we can technically seize and control the resources that go to and from any conquered nation, exacting an extortion on their populations to force some level of civilized compliance upon their leadership when we leave. We can control all of their population and supply movements on the seas and in the air. We can fence in entire cities and control all movement, building, and progress...if need be. Exerting control can be done without a physical occupation, too. If we want world shipping to follow our daily approval, then we *can* enforce that without an occupation. Ditto for air travel, trains, barges, and buses. We can shut down and control all TV, radio, internet, and most "national" newspapers without an occupation.
None of these heavy-handed measures are preferred, of course. But you can't say that we are stretched thin when you consider what we *can* do without further occupations. We can shut global travel, communications, and movement off, confining everyone inside their own borders, save for a small amount of foot traffic, if the situation were so dire as to demand such measures.
We can invade and conquer or obliterate *any* patch of ground and own *every* cubic foot of the world's oceans. We can control all airwaves and wire communications between borders. We can control all cross-border movement save for some foot traffic, all without further occupations.
So we can not consider "occupations" to be mandatory. Occupations are preferred and humane, but that's not mandatory.
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
"Could the U.S. military really afford an invasion of Iran any time in the near future? We seem to be stretched thin as is and the Iranian army is substantially more thorough than Iraq's. Iran undoubtedly is no friend to ours that can't be trusted but can the US really afford a new war at this point in time??"
Good questions. Now for the next question. With Iran threatening to attack the US and appear to be developing nuclear weapons, can we afford not to go to war with Iran?
I guess because their background and equipment was only consistent with preparing to kill someone or blow up something. Looks like Blair was the closest thing worth killing.
Touche!
Maybe they planted a homing chip in them before the deportation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
