By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!


Discussion in 'News' started by casekonly, Sep 20, 2005.

  1. casekonly

    casekonly Veteran Member

    Joined: Aug 6, 2002 Messages: 8,264 Likes Received: 5
    " The effects of the RMA will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what weapons dominate, and which nations enjoy military preeminence.

    Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.

    In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow’s U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions:

    • Global missile defenses. A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered system of land, sea, air and spacebased components.

    • Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new “international commons” be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the “infosphere” will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.

    • Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions. "


    i just learned about this recently. fucking scary.
  2. casekonly

    casekonly Veteran Member

    Joined: Aug 6, 2002 Messages: 8,264 Likes Received: 5
  3. !@#$%

    [email protected]#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined: Oct 1, 2002 Messages: 18,517 Likes Received: 623
    i saw a bunch of shit about transformation recently on PBS

    why are we still so worried about missile defense systems when we clearly cannot even evacuate an american city?

  4. !@#$%

    [email protected]#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined: Oct 1, 2002 Messages: 18,517 Likes Received: 623
    pushing transformation
    Some comments and stories about Rumsfeld's contentious battle with the Pentagon bureaucracy to overhaul the way the U.S. military thinks and fights, drawing from FRONTLINE's interviews with Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper (U.S. Marine Corps-Ret.); Gen. Thomas White (U.S. Army-Ret.), Secretary of the Army 2001-2003; Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (U.S. Marine Corps-Ret.), Commander, CENTCOM (1991-1994); and Thomas Ricks, Pentagon correspondent for The Washington Post.

    paul van riper
    (Lt. Gen., U.S. Marine Corps-Ret.).

    What does transformation mean to these military guys?

    I have no truck with those who talk about terms like transformation. It clearly indicates they don't know what they're doing. All it is is a slogan rather than getting to the hard problems. ... These ideas have never truly been vetted, and yet they're being sold to our headquarters, our services, as the way we want to fight in the future. This intellectual renaissance that I've referred to repeatedly that occurred after Vietnam has not been revived. Rather than trying to think our way through the problem, we're trying to buy our way. So we had to buy our way in terms of technology; we buy our way in terms of some of these ideas without the underpinnings of real bases that you can fight on. ...

    I see a very close parallel to what happened after the end of the Second World War. At the end of the Second World War, the focus was on atomic weapons, the technology. Today, the analogous idea is on information technology. We believe that's the cure-all for everything.

    There's an art and science to war. The science is in support of the art. The science gives you the weapons systems; it allows you to have the communications; it allows you to have all the things that support the actual conduct of war. War, as it is fought, is an art. It's not a science. If you try to make it a science, you're bound to be disappointed.

    The saving grace at this point, here in the middle of 2004, is the fact that none of these things have found their way to the operating forces to any great degree. So the operating forces are still using tried-and-true methods of operations that they feel very comfortable with. It's only a matter of time, however, before those ideas are pushed down and this very rich body of doctrine that came out of the post-Vietnam era, proved in two large operations, is swept aside and we find difficulty.

    photo of hoar

    joseph p. hoar
    (Gen., U.S. Marine Corps-Ret.), Commander, CENTCOM (1991-1994).
    read the full interview

    …There is, in the first eight months or so, real confusion from the civilian side of the Defense Department. What was your take on those first few months?

    Well, there was a lot of discussion about transformation. It appeared in virtually every Defense document. It was clearly something that Mr. [Donald] Rumsfeld wanted to see take place. It wasn't really clear what it encompassed, though, at least not to me. Each of the services attempted to take their pet projects, most of which related to hardware, and say, "My new fighter aircraft is transformational; my new helicopter is transformational; my artillery piece is transformational." And of course, in many cases, you wouldn't know if it was transformational or not until the secretary said it wasn't.

    We all knew that there were going to be fewer troops. We were going to be lighter, faster, and we were going to depend more on technology. That part of it was clear -- so far so good. But I think one of the things that the Iraqi campaign has shown us is that you need to go very slowly when you talk about reducing the size of the armed forces. Today we find over 50 percent of the United States Army, the regular Army, 10 divisions, committed overseas. It's not sustainable.

  5. casekonly

    casekonly Veteran Member

    Joined: Aug 6, 2002 Messages: 8,264 Likes Received: 5
    wow, symbols. constantly coming through with some good reading material.

    the more i read into what happened before september 11th, and what happened within the weeks preceeding....it's just damn scary.

    seems like it was all rigged even before bush jr. got into office. like a movie being written, the stage being set....lights, camera, action.

    there's something i saw on a freedom tv broadcast this morning 'loose change'. it showed usama wearing a gold ring and a watch on his right hand and said that those things are forbidden in islam. also, usama is left handed. then there was the statement usama made in an interview days after sept 11th. he said he would never kill innocent people. especially women and children. it's against his religion.
  6. casekonly

    casekonly Veteran Member

    Joined: Aug 6, 2002 Messages: 8,264 Likes Received: 5
    * The U.S. must take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
    * The U.S. must "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" as a "core mission"
    * The U.S. forces are "the cavalry on the new American frontier"
    * The report builds upon the 1992 draft document " Defense Planning Guidance," which claimed that the U.S. must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role"
    * Permanent U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power
    * Increasing military pressure on China: "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia" which will lead to "American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China"
    * "the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US"
    * The report contains ambivalent language toward bioterrorism and genetic warfare: "New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"
    * Development of "world-wide command-and-control system" to contain dangerous regimes of North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran.
  7. shai

    shai Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Jan 6, 2003 Messages: 17,602 Likes Received: 707
    "HOMELAND DEFENSE. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority."


    Does it strike you as odd that a report released a year prior to 9-11 would speak of "Homeland Defense"? Sounds a lot like the "Department of Homeland Security" was being staged before there was even a need for it....

    It was a way to consolidate domestic agencies such as the INS, FEMA, and Border Patrol into one umbrella organization, with one head, picked by Cheney himself.

    I think Bush is too dumb in a lot of ways to have the vision for a plan like this...but, I wouldn't discount his complicity for a second. Cheney is the real brains behind what's going on...and this document is like his imprimatur for the entire scenario.

    How many people know about this document, I wonder?
  8. Stereotype V.001

    Stereotype V.001 Member

    Joined: Jun 9, 2005 Messages: 416 Likes Received: 0
    Osama Bin Laden is a rich Saudi, at one time thought to be a businessman and related to many businessmen (hence his wealth). They often dress in the clothing style of westerners since we're the ones that give them alot of money. Also, rich kids in Saudi Arabia have this place they go to in order to forget about their strict religion. Its connected to the mainland by a long bridge, and it's filled with such devious things as clubs, bars, and hookers. Osama spent some time here while a youngster at school, if that sheds any light on exactly how stricly he followed his religious beliefs.

    Do you have a copy of that interview in the days after 9-11? Or any proof of it's existence at all? I recall Osama taking credit for the attacks against the great satan days afterwards, as well as those embassy bombings a few years back. Second in charge also praised the attacks that happened recently in London. But perhaps your right, maybe it's all some hoax/crappy movie. Osama would really never hurt a fly, and those attacks were an elaborate scheme by GWB/Cheyney to make them seem like inept leaders.

    "....lights, camera, action."
    This was very dramatic!
  9. shai

    shai Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Jan 6, 2003 Messages: 17,602 Likes Received: 707
    That's true...with no disrespect to Islam, it seems that the ones who are proclaiming fatwas and Jihad are not exactly the best examples Islam has to offer. Osama is decidedly egalitarian and has been disowned by his family. Saddam killed at least 20,000 of his own people a YEAR, fellow Muslims all.

    Then again, we have Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as Shining Christian Examples. As we sit here on a graffiti message board and debate....politics. We live in a truly strange world, my friends.
  10. casekonly

    casekonly Veteran Member

    Joined: Aug 6, 2002 Messages: 8,264 Likes Received: 5
    i'm looking for that interview. it was also cited in 'loose change' the september 11th documentary. i'll try and dig up a transcript.

    shai hulud: it is a strange world.
  11. casekonly

    casekonly Veteran Member

    Joined: Aug 6, 2002 Messages: 8,264 Likes Received: 5
    my mistake, it was in 98 that he did this interview.


    Many of the Arabic as well as the Western mass media accuse you of terrorism and of supporting terrorism. What do you have to say to that?

    There is an Arabic proverb that says "she accused me of having her malady, then snuck away." Besides, terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible. Terrifying an innocent person and terrorizing him is objectionable and unjust, also unjustly terrorizing people is not right.

    They rip us of our wealth, resources and oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill, murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest, we are called terrorists Whereas, terrorizing oppressors and criminals and thieves and robbers is necessary for the safety of people and for the protection of their property. There is no doubt in this. Every state and every civilization and culture has to resort to terrorism under certain circumstances for the purpose of abolishing tyranny and corruption. Every country in the world has its own security system and its own security forces, its own police and its own army. They are all designed to terrorize whoever even contemplates to attack that country or its citizens. The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah, the tyrants, the traitors who commit acts of treason against their own countries and their own faith and their own prophet and their own nation. Terrorizing those and punishing them are necessary measures to straighten things and to make them right. Tyrants and oppressors who subject the Arab nation to aggression ought to be punished. The wrongs and the crimes committed against the Muslim nation are far greater than can be covered by this interview. America heads the list of aggressors against Muslims. The recurrence of aggression against Muslims everywhere is proof enough. For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed. And the strange thing is that any act on their part to avenge themselves or to lift the injustice befalling them causes great agitation in the United Nations which hastens to call for an emergency meeting only to convict the victim and to censure the wronged and the tyrannized whose children have been killed and whose crops have been destroyed and whose farms have been pulverized. ...

    In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression. They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. And the United Nations insistence to convict the victims and support the aggressors constitutes a serious precedence which shows the extent of injustice that has been allowed to take root in this land. ...
  12. Stereotype V.001

    Stereotype V.001 Member

    Joined: Jun 9, 2005 Messages: 416 Likes Received: 0
    It's interesting he realizes killing civilians is wrong, yet plans all of his attacks based around killing the maximum amount of people. Sure, he can write off 9-11, Madrid, and London as dealing with them pesky infidels. But what about the foreign fighters under the leadership of Al Queda that more often than not kill massive amounts of Iraqi civilians? I guess they aren't real people.

    Sad that some people actually believe some of this shit. Going so far to the left your on the right, only with a new group of radical ideologues.
  13. CACashRefund

    CACashRefund 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Oct 8, 2004 Messages: 14,171 Likes Received: 272
    Any action by any other means would not get as much, if any, attention. Military and government targets, while more favorable over civilian ones are often harder to carry out.
  14. casekonly

    casekonly Veteran Member

    Joined: Aug 6, 2002 Messages: 8,264 Likes Received: 5
    he also says that every nation has its terrorists. you can disguise them as an army or call them rebels, but they are all terrorists.

    to them, our army is a terrorist org. when it comes down to killing, who is really right?
  15. shai

    shai Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Jan 6, 2003 Messages: 17,602 Likes Received: 707
    Depends who's on the business end of the killing. The US mlitary has probably avenged 9-11 tenfold by now in Iraqi civilian deaths...we've got them in a undeclared civil war, too, so all of those deaths could easily be attributed to us, indirectly. No wonder they hate us...we kill more civilians than insurgents., and probably could be considered Public Enemy No. 1 in sheer numbers. The regular army is on our side, in theory...last time I checked. Also, anyone could be considered an insurgent, if you broaden the definition to suit your needs.