7 ms·

Something to consider: perhaps the Bureau allows resources to be spent on "nobody-wannabe-terrorists" because it provides real-world experience for dealing with

Something to consider: perhaps the Bureau allows resources to be spent on "nobody-wannabe-terrorists" because it provides real-world experience for dealing with "actual-fuck-up-your-shit" terrorists, as well as a general reminder of how powerful and pervasive the FBI can be. There is a prevailing theory that America's post-WWII habit of blasting smaller countries to smithereens (Vietnam, Iraq) is at least partially done to test out new war tech, train soldiers for real conflicts, and demonstrate the power of the American military to uppity rivals who might think twice about butting heads with the biggest military of all time.

pjc50 10y ago
> (Vietnam, Iraq) > demonstrate the power of the American military Given that the first of those was a clear defeat and the second is still bogged down in guerilla warfare, I'm not sure this sends the desired message.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  You missed the point. It's not about proving the ability to occupy a country, it's about proving the ability to annihilate its military, which is something to keep in mind whether you're China or Kyrgyzstan.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    In Vietnam, we didn't annihilate any country's military (arguably, the Viet Cong was largely crushed, but they weren't a national military; the NVA, which was a national military, wasn't crushed.) So, even with the newly stated point, citing Vietnam as evidence of our ability to annihilate a country's military isn't really a good idea.
  - im_down_w_otp 10y ago
    So without these occurrences, you're positing that countries like China and Kyrgyzstan (seriously?) would some how lose track of the fact that we spend more on our military than the entire GDP of most other countries, have shiny military tech coming out our ears, and have enough nuclear capability to make irradiated glass the only commodity left for them to barter with in their new found post-apocalyptic hell scape?
    - tripzilch 10y ago
      Bullies gonna bully, though.
manufacturious 10y ago
I think both situations you described are unethical and I don't want my government doing either of them. I'd also question your use of the word prevailing, as I have never heard this theory in respectable historical circles. (I'm not an expert by any means, but I have yet to hear a respected scholar or non-conspiracy theorist advance any evidence to this concept.)

pjc50 10y ago

> (Vietnam, Iraq) > demonstrate the power of the American military Given that the first of those was a clear defeat and the second is still bogged down in guerilla warfare, I'm not sure this sends the desired message.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
You missed the point. It's not about proving the ability to occupy a country, it's about proving the ability to annihilate its military, which is something to keep in mind whether you're China or Kyrgyzstan.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  In Vietnam, we didn't annihilate any country's military (arguably, the Viet Cong was largely crushed, but they weren't a national military; the NVA, which was a national military, wasn't crushed.) So, even with the newly stated point, citing Vietnam as evidence of our ability to annihilate a country's military isn't really a good idea.
- im_down_w_otp 10y ago
  So without these occurrences, you're positing that countries like China and Kyrgyzstan (seriously?) would some how lose track of the fact that we spend more on our military than the entire GDP of most other countries, have shiny military tech coming out our ears, and have enough nuclear capability to make irradiated glass the only commodity left for them to barter with in their new found post-apocalyptic hell scape?
  - tripzilch 10y ago
    Bullies gonna bully, though.

manufacturious 10y ago

I think both situations you described are unethical and I don't want my government doing either of them. I'd also question your use of the word prevailing, as I have never heard this theory in respectable historical circles. (I'm not an expert by any means, but I have yet to hear a respected scholar or non-conspiracy theorist advance any evidence to this concept.)