[quote]pookie wrote:
Devil0351Dog wrote:
Been there, done that. Best and worst 7 months of my life…Bottom line, we are helping a formerly oppressed people AND taking the war to the enemy. I’d much rather fight terrorists in Iraq than in my backyard. Ever think how much damage an IED would do to stopped rush hour traffic on the beltway, I-5, or any other major highway? Think about it, it’s gonna happen one of these days real soon, and sooner if we stop fighting them in THEIR homeland.
Joe
Please explain how troops in Iraq prevent sleeper cells from forming and operating in America?
It did nothing to prevent the recent attacks in London; the bombers there had no criminal records, they had valid ID papers (the UK “Bio Card”). They had no problems in pulling off their attacks.
The Iraq war is probably draining useful resources that could be applied here – better intelligence, for example – to fight terrorist groups that are already here. They operate as independent cells; they coordinate using the internet. They have no “homeland” or “base of operation” you can attack.
Stop accepting all the “talking points” from your administration as cold, hard objective facts; they’re nothing of the sort. “Fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here” is a cute slogan; but it’s also total bullshit. Do you think all the local terrorists will fly abroad to lend a hand in Iraq? Come on.
[/quote]
Hey Bro, if that’s your opinion, good to go. However, my opinion stands. And it has nothing to do with “my administration” feeding me bullshit. I may be a “dumb grunt” but I’m not dumb. Think about this. If you want to kill an American, it’s a hell of a lot easier to cross the Syrian/Iranian or whereever other border and try to kill an American in Iraq than it is for them to get on a plane and come here.
And notice that I said we WILL have IEDs and attacks here. But the war in Iraq is sucking up THEIR resources as well as ours. But yes, you are right. We have sleeper cells. They are planning to hit us right now. When? How? Be creative and your guess will probably be right. Pleasant thought. Huh?
Hedo,I see what FightinIrish is saying,Our countries problem is they go to war half way,if there going to wipe out the problem wipe it out and be done with it .but they always send our troops in then they start pplayin games so they dont look to bad.and its the troops stuck in the middle that are taking all the punishment,in almost every war they do the same B.S.
now i understand that what we are doing will take time. but, at what point do u stop holding someones hand.
let me put it like this. most everyone has someone in there family that is jacked up. and always comes to you looking for help. will never help themselves.
at what point do u stop helping someone who wont help themselves. give them a little tuff love.
that is what is happening in iraq. everytime they get in trouble we say dont worry we will fix this.
we will take care of all the insurgents that are killing your people and ours.
we will take care of training all your troops.
just dont worry we got you.
what good does that do for anyone.
at what point do we scale back the forces that handle all the bad shit and start faseing in iraqie police and iraqie millitary.
now on a diff note.
someone said that they would rather fight them there than in our backyard.
agreed.
but man they are in our backyard right now. yes we have some of them tied up in iraq. but with more and more supporters crossing the border and comeing to the aid of the insurgents.
its just a matter of time before more get here and set off a bomb somewhere.
there are no front lines to this. where do you look to find the enemy. well, iraq that is obvious. but what about here. no one knows.
its like being on a convoy in iraq. you see all the people standing on the side of the road. they all wave and smile and say oh i love america. and when the last hummv goes by or duce 1/2
boom.
same thing here. just on a smaller scale. they walk around and smile at everyone the whole time looking for the right time to hit us.
now once again i will say go read the PLEASE DONT FORGET THREAD. u will see my post. and see how i feel.
i dont want anythig like 9/11 to happen again. but being over there keeping them tied up for the time being will only work for so long.
that is why i say scale back the foces give some tuff love to iraq. and have them help themselves.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Goku_SS4 wrote:
we will always be faut and hated there by by the taliban & alkida(who are wahabi) that are and extrem groop of muslim who bleieve that all who dont beleive there way of life is wrong and hate all. even other iraqies that dont share their beliefes.
With a terrorism-supporting Iran struggling to become a nuclear power, and then brazenly announcing that they will share nuclear technology, it is imperative that we not turn a blind eye to the region. There is a hell of a lot more than some oil supply at stake here.
that is why we need to scale back on iraq and worry about other issues. iran thinks that if u have nuclear weopons that the us wont invade u. there probably right. now is the time to have iraq do something for themselves.
We’ve had so many threads in this forum about Iraq, and this is the one thing that the “we shouldn’t be over there” crowd can’t seem to understand. I researched a little, and it looks like we’ve spent almost 2 "Dr. Evil"s (WAN HAND-rid BEELEE-un dollars!) on Iraq already. Was it worth it? I think so.[/quote]
ok some of the money was worth it.
but the money we spend on detainees medical supplyes and other stuff like smokes for them. all the detainees have to do is go up to one of us and say sergent im sick. and they get what ever kind of medical treatment they need. and what did they do to get that kind of medical treatment. just kill american troops. thats all.
and who pays for that we do.
when there are people here in america that cant even afford to go to the doctor to get what they need or the drug store.
when in iraq all u have to do is kill a few americans turn yourself in and you get what ever you need. any kind of medicine you can think of they get just for being insurgents.
[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
Goku - Hell yeah, brother. I’ve spent my fair share in the sand box, and we will be there for a while. Keep safe and stay low.
Frisbee-
Shut the hell up and show some respect, you fucking oxygen thief.
RLTW
rangertab75[/quote]
thanks rangertab. we can always count on the rangers to have our backs.
remember when i said that we should scale back the forces in iraq to focuse on other things like iran. this is why it is so important to have the iraqie gov do something for themselves. or we will be trying to keep iraq together and go after iran at the same time.
talk about to many irons in the fire. my god we are stretched thin enough as it is now. what if we had to take care of both. it would be almost impossible.
but if we dont give the iraqies a little tuff love that is just what we will be doing.
fighting a war with 2 countries insead of one and then iraq will still be looking for the US to them at the same time.
[quote]cycobushmaster wrote:
i agree…i fully suported the invasion of Afghanistan, but didn’t feel the US was prepared to fully invade Iraq. but the fact of the matter is that Iraq had been ignoring UN resolutions time and time again, and refused access to several suspected sites. that alone is reason enough for the invasion…but the UN should have been involved.[/quote]
I also supported Afghanistan as the goal back then was to go after Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. 4 years later, OBL is still somewhere out there…
15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis. None were Iraqis. Are you sure you invaded the right country?
I’ll reiterate that it didn’t help for Spain or for London. They both got attacked while the Iraq was was going on.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Why do all the pacifists think they know a better way to wage war then the warriors. Nobody likes war less then those that have seen it up close. When they (we) say the cause is worth it, take it to heart.[/quote]
That’s a good point. How many in your current administration have actually seen war? The only one I know of, Colin Powell, was more or less kicked out of the cabinet. If I recall, he wasn’t very keen on invading Iraq.
It’s also been widely reported that your generals were asking for much more troops than Rumsfeld wanted to commit. His “Rumsfeld Doctrine” said that the U.S. could fight many wars on many front by using less troops and making up the difference through superior technology. Unfortunately, it seems that the Rumsfeld Doctrine has failed it’s first (and hopefully last) test.
If they’d let Colin Powell and your top generals run the war according to their experience, it might have gone a whole lot better.
The Arab nations have had their ass kicked repeatedly by Israel. You really think they’d have a snowball’s chance in Hell of conquering the continental U.S? Come on, man, you’re not really that naive, are you?
[quote]Devil0351Dog wrote:
Hey Bro, if that’s your opinion, good to go. However, my opinion stands. And it has nothing to do with “my administration” feeding me bullshit. I may be a “dumb grunt” but I’m not dumb. Think about this. If you want to kill an American, it’s a hell of a lot easier to cross the Syrian/Iranian or whereever other border and try to kill an American in Iraq than it is for them to get on a plane and come here.[/quote]
Again, how do you guys explain the attacks in Spain and London? And even those in Egypt, while we’re at it.
Their resources? All they need are suicide bombers. For the rest, they mostly use cars with homemade explosives. You don’t think they’re going to run out of cars, do you?
I think your resources are being drained a lot more that their resources are.
I hope someone here is doing something about those. If Katrina and New Orleans is any indication, FEMA and the dept. of Homeland Security seem to be sitting with their thumbs up their asses. What if a sleeper cell had blown up the levees, with no prior evacuation notice? How many deads could that have produced?
Last year, their was a report on 60 minutes that showed how easy it was to gain access to a bunch of restricted sites, such as nuclear reactors. They got in unannouced with a whole camera crew and got inside the building. The guards where all sitting around watching a football game…
All the things I read about are simply “feel good” policies implemented to show John Q. Public that the government is doing something. Airport security is by and large a dog-and-pony show for the public. Same thing with National ID Cards, which don’t increase security at all, etc.
I really hope there are also a lot of unheard of policies being implemented intelligently and efficiently; that we don’t know about; but that will help prevent internal attacks. But somehow, I doubt it.
No I’m not naive at all. How many WMD’s do you think it takes to ruin your day. With mass immigration of Muslims to Europe and low native birth rates how long do you think it will be until Islam is embraced by a western European country and becomes an Islamic state? Perhpas 2020 or so. Since they are so liberally enlightned they will not resist in the name of political correctness.
If the Arab’s and Islamofacism is so easily defeated why are you and much of Liberal Europe so frightened by them and willing to conceed? Islamofacism is small. Time to crush it now and over there or you’ll be dealing with it here in the future.
You don’t really think that the current administration is without experience do you? That’s naive thinking. The officer corps are well experienced and most general officers have had combat experience. The CINC’s who design the warplans are all combat veterans. We have a seperation of military and civilian leadership. Unfortunately many liberals are quick to criticize GWB’s National Guard Experience even though his most vocal critics spent the same time period bitching and protesting.
[quote]hedo wrote:
No I’m not naive at all. How many WMD’s do you think it takes to ruin your day. [/quote]
It takes a lot less than a WMD to spoil my day. A suicide bomber, in the same shopping mall as I happen to be in, would do it nicely.
The Iraq war does nothing to address that problem. Immigration and low natality rates aren’t solved with tanks and guns.
Actually, it’s called democracy. If you let a foreign culture become the majority through immigration, then you should accept that they’ll be able to elect their representatives and pass their laws on your land.
The military solution to that is genocide. I’d rather see policies to either encourage a higher natality rate or better control of immigration.
Islamofacism is not a country you can defeat. It’s an ideology. In the same way that you can’t defeat “terrorism”, because terrorism is a tool; you can’t defeat an ideology thru military means. You must have policies in place that make that ideology so unpopular that it can never grow enough to be a threat.
In the same way that Germany’s defeat in WWII didn’t obliterate nazism – there are still skinheads and small groups of nazis here and there – the policies applied to Germany after WWII were a lot less draconians than those of WWI and allowed the German people to save face and rebuild their country.
If your only policy towards Arabs is to crush them, then you’ll be stuck with the problem forever, or until you exterminate every last one of them.
Yes I think your current administration is run by crooked, self-interested idiots. It’s been widely reported that the generals, who are the ones that have to run the war on the ground, were asking for many more troops than Rumsfeld was willing to give them.
I completely agree with you that war should be run by those with the most experience in it, not by civilians. The administration should set the objectives and give the generals what they need to attain them. Forcing them to pursue the same objectives with vastly reduced force commitment is retarded. But that’s what you’ve got in the current Iraq war.
Rumsfeld thought that better technology would make up for less troops. He’s wrong. Better technology works fine for the fighting part, as Shock & Awe showed us; but for occupation, stabilizing and nation building (which are actually the most important part of the war), nothing replaces having troops on the ground. Even with a better gun, night vision and body armor, a soldier still can’t be in two places at the same time.
Too bad your idealogy doesn’t allow open thought or new ideas. Perhaps the
Islamofacists will just stop in Europe or Canada because you know there just nice guys like that.
To give up and accept that it’s ok to elect your representative leaders whether be Islamofacists or National Socialists and the rest of the world should just smile is defeatist.
Yes those skinheads are quite the problem with thier terroist training bases, attacking buildings and subways, kidnapping and beheading huh? Oh wait a minute they aren’t doing that are they. They are a fringe group of disenchanted youth. How bout those Kamikaze’s. Seen one lately?
The populations of Japan and Germany were defeated because we made war on them. The will was broken. Of course it’s possible to defeat terrorism. Only the left believes it’s not possible.
Don’t worry we’ll handle it. Hop on the bandwagon when victory is assured.
Pookie- My last 2 cents on this…Talking about a war I’ve fought with people who haven’t raises my blood pressure…Before I counter, read “My Jihad” (don’t remember the authors name). Whether it’s true or not I don’t know, but it will give you some insight into the mind of Muslim extremist (American no less!) or whatever. Oh, and watch “Alamo”. The final scenes emphasize the imortance of choosing your battleground (that’s probably in some military books too, but the movie is fuckin cool!).
Now, yes, there were attacks in London/Spain/Egypt. Were the attackers from sleeper cells? Men who crossed several borders on the EurAsian continent with the purpose of killing? I don’t know. Whichever one, there would probably be more if we weren’t occupying their time in Iraq. Getting into a developed nation with “security” isn’t as easy as it is to get into Iraq. So, therefore, a terrorist will take the path of least resistance and fight an American in Iraq rather than in the US. That being said, YES! there will still be those comming to the US/Britain/Spain etc.
On the topic of resources…What’s the biggest resource? MONEY! Damn insurgents are spending it on recruiting/weapons etc. over there…
Let’s not forget about Al Queda(sp?) Iraq frontman, Zarqawi! We want him dead! He’s a bad dude and is head of an offshoot terror cell. Pretty sure he’s on the US 10 MOst Wanted List. Pretty sure he’s in Iraq.
Now, resources being used there that could be used on the homefront? Are you suggesting we put Marines and Soldiers on every street corner and search house to house for Muslim extremists and sleeper cells here in the US? Maybe we should, but that would probably infringe on a few unalienable rights. And as a US Marine, I’d rather kick in doors in Iraq than the US. Our intelligence probably wants us over there, so that’s where we are. Whatever the case, it’s not gonna change for a while. And it shouldn’t. If you’re going to do a job, don’t half-ass it.
That’s my 2 cents and I’m stickin to it! I ain’t postin on this topic anymore so you can feel free to take the last word.
Too bad your idealogy doesn’t allow open thought or new ideas. Perhaps the
Islamofacists will just stop in Europe or Canada because you know there just nice guys like that.
To give up and accept that it’s ok to elect your representative leaders whether be Islamofacists or National Socialists and the rest of the world should just smile is defeatist.
Yes those skinheads are quite the problem with thier terroist training bases, attacking buildings and subways, kidnapping and beheading huh? Oh wait a minute they aren’t doing that are they. They are a fringe group of disenchanted youth. How bout those Kamikaze’s. Seen one lately?
The populations of Japan and Germany were defeated because we made war on them. The will was broken. Of course it’s possible to defeat terrorism. Only the left believes it’s not possible.
Don’t worry we’ll handle it. Hop on the bandwagon when victory is assured.
Take care.[/quote]
That’s an interesting way to debate. Pick up some random words, remove all of the original context in which they were used and make some random macho bullshit comments about how good you are at war.
Is it because you don’t understand what I said, or because you’re unable to form an opinion that hasn’t been fed to you?
Anyway, let me know when terrorism has been defeated.
[quote]Devil0351Dog wrote:
Now, yes, there were attacks in London/Spain/Egypt. Were the attackers from sleeper cells? Men who crossed several borders on the EurAsian continent with the purpose of killing? I don’t know. Whichever one, there would probably be more if we weren’t occupying their time in Iraq.[/quote]
How do you know?
You think that all they want is “to kill an American?” Like a hunter says “I gotta bag me a deer?” Come on, if they’re really that stupid, what’s taking you so fucking long?
The goal of terrorists is not to kill some random American (and even less to kill an American soldier), it’s to cause terror with the goal of scaring enough people that they’ll eventually influence politics. Look at Spain, with the attacks on the train before the elections. Many have said that the outcome of those elections was affected and the new government pulled out the Spanish troops from Iraq.
I’m sure that for many fanatics for whom coming to the U.S. is not an option, going to Iraq is probably a popular choice. I don’t think it place any real drain on their resources, though. Look at 9/11, they used 19 guys; they don’t need to have thousands to mount an attack.
It costs them a lot less for their attacks than it’s costing you with a complete army, equipement, maintenance personel, etc.
Osama Bin Laden believes he bankrupted the Soviet Union with the Afghanistan war. He believes Al Qaeda can do it again with the U.S. He’s probably wrong, but the funds being spent on the war over there are certainly not available for programs over here.
Hey, great idea. Remember Osama? You wanted him too. Where the fuck is he?
But even if you get OBL and Zarqawi, do you think Al Qaeda stops there? I don’t know if your Jihad book mentioned how the various cells operate, but they’re mostly independent and will cooperate for some attacks if needed, but in no way does the taking out of one or more cell affect any other one that manages to remain undetected.
Final point: As technology advances, it becomes easier and easier for a single man, or a small group of men with a limited budget to cause an enormous amount of damage and deaths. Look at McVeigh and his fertilizer bomb. How to build those is not difficult knowledge to acquire.
No, of course not. If we need to become police states to survive, we have lost.
I’m saying that airport security is still more of a show than a effective measure. Same thing with National ID cards; people think that helps to make them safer, but it doesn’t. I’m saying resources should be allocated to probe and test existing security systems. When you find faults, you address the problem. You get creative people to dream up attack scenarios and then you prepare yourself as best as possible to respond to those scenarios.
When I hear your president say that “No one could foresee that the levee would break” when talking about Katrina, I think someone, somewhere was not doing his job. Same thing with 9/11. I remember seeing some government guy (can’t find the reference) saying that no one had ever thought of using and airplane as a missile to destroy a building. Funny, I read about that in the Stephen King story “Running Man”.
That’s the kind of local spending I think would better serve security. You don’t have to spend billions every day; but you need to cut off all of the “low hanging fruits” that enable easy attacks. You can never prevent 100% of the threats; but you can try to ensure that any effective attack will be more difficult and that your emergency response to it will be swift and efficient.
[quote]Maybe we should, but that would probably infringe on a few unalienable rights. And as a US Marine, I’d rather kick in doors in Iraq than the US. Our intelligence probably wants us over there, so that’s where we are. Whatever the case, it’s not gonna change for a while. And it shouldn’t. If you’re going to do a job, don’t half-ass it.
That’s my 2 cents and I’m stickin to it! I ain’t postin on this topic anymore so you can feel free to take the last word.[/quote]
Damn, I should’ve read all the way down before answering. Ah well. I do agree that now that you’re in Iraq, you’ve got to finish the job right before coming back; no matter how back-asswards you go about it.
this is just a little pic that i got emailed.[/quote]
Just wanted to mention that this picture is a fake. There is a website where you can put any message you want on that cardboard sign. (We actually discussed it here over a year ago.)
