Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 11/14/2005 9:28:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2005 9:33:16 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
You really need to read these five articles. And pass them on to everyone you know, and especally those who while about how we "just need to get out of that shithole"...

1. Steven Den Bestes "Strategic Overview" written way back in September of 2003, still remarkably valid.

2. The blogger known as "Tigerhawk" produced this "Annotated Version of Den Bestes Strategic Overview" which takes into account the events of the last two years since the original work was written.

3. American Digests essay The First Terrorist War from October 2003, also still extremely relevant.

4. Wretcherd of the Belmont Club's "The Three Conjectures" also from September 2003 on how Al Qaida has perminently changed the threshold for a Nuclear conflict.

5. The short Postscript to the article above, written a couple weeks later
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 9:34:56 PM EDT
I'm no longer concerned with why we're fighting, or even who we're fighting for that matter.

I'm concerned with how we're going to pay for it.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 9:36:18 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 9:39:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2005 9:40:12 PM EDT by stickyDJnugz]

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
I'm concerned with how we're going to pay for it.



The same way most Americans pay for Christmas: by going into massive debt.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 9:40:05 PM EDT
Take more countries? Lets see how Iraq goes first.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 9:41:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By stickyDJnugz:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
I'm concerned with how we're going to pay for it.



The same way most Americans pay for Christmas: by going into massive debt.



And just like most Americans, theres comes a point where you get too far into debt. America cant just declare bankruptcy, unlike you or I.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 9:45:34 PM EDT

A bridge too far.

Rick
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 9:54:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By stickyDJnugz:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
I'm concerned with how we're going to pay for it.



The same way most Americans pay for Christmas: by going into massive debt.



And just like most Americans, theres comes a point where you get too far into debt. America cant just declare bankruptcy, unlike you or I.



uhh....yeah they can. In fact we have absolved ourselves from all owed debts before (what like after american revolution..or was it 1812?).
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 9:55:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2005 9:56:06 PM EDT by Specop_007]

Originally Posted By clement:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By stickyDJnugz:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
I'm concerned with how we're going to pay for it.



The same way most Americans pay for Christmas: by going into massive debt.



And just like most Americans, theres comes a point where you get too far into debt. America cant just declare bankruptcy, unlike you or I.



uhh....yeah they can. In fact we have absolved ourselves from all owed debts before (what like after american revolution..or was it 1812?).



That would do wonders in keeping our international trade partners now wouldnt it.
Whether we choose to admit it or not, we truly live in a global economy. And if we piss off enough people, they can tell us to pound sand and all the tanks in the world wont mean a damn thing.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 9:56:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
I'm no longer concerned with why we're fighting, or even who we're fighting for that matter.

I'm concerned with how we're going to pay for it.



How did we pay for World War II.

Link Posted: 11/14/2005 9:58:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
I'm no longer concerned with why we're fighting, or even who we're fighting for that matter.

I'm concerned with how we're going to pay for it.



How did we pay for World War II.




With a dollar backed by gold.
Not with credit from the Chinese.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 10:12:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 10:18:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
I'm no longer concerned with why we're fighting, or even who we're fighting for that matter.

I'm concerned with how we're going to pay for it.



How did we pay for World War II.




With a dollar backed by gold.
Not with credit from the Chinese.




The answer can perhaps be found in al Qaeda's own doctrine, which American scholars increasingly understand. According to Princeton's Michael Scott Doran (now on the National Security Council), al Qaeda's strategy is to "vex and exhaust" the apostate Muslim regimes and the United States, their principal sponsor:


So where does the war stand now, according to al Qaeda? A leading al Qaeda operative has written a book, the title of which translates loosely to “The Management of Chaos.” According to al Qaeda, the current stage of revolution is the stage of “vexation and exhaustion” of the enemy. They have a notion of how to do this to the Americans and to their 'puppets'.

You vex and exhaust the Americans, according to al Qaeda, by making them spend a lot of money. The United States is a materialist society, and if forced to spend too much money it will “cut and run.”

The means to this end is to force the Americans to spread themselves thinly. Al Qaeda wants to strike everywhere, not just spectacular high value attacks. This will cause the Americans to defend a lot of places at high cost.



from tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/strategic-overview-annotating-and.html

Thank you for providing the illustration Specop_007

Oh, and we were already off the gold standard, in World War II had been since June 1933. A good thing as there was not enough gold, nor gold production, to support the war effort much less the economy that boomed afterward.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 10:27:39 PM EDT
Its not a matter of whether or not I WANT to afford it, or whether or not I WANT to pay for it.
Its a matter of we CANT afford it. We cannot afford to keep dumping BILLIONS of dollars into fighting wars. At some point, the money runs out. Its really very, very basic and simple economics.
I appreciate you argueing we need yo go here and there and everywhere, but simple economics says we cannot afford to keep doing it. Its that simple.

Sure, it sounds great, Its looks good on paper. Go here and kick terrorist ass, go there and kick terrorist ass, move over there and remove dicator etc etc. But at some point, the piper must be paid for the tune he plays. America as a nation is already ass deep to a tall indian in debt. When the tab comes, we aint gonna be able to cover it.
Unless of course you think we can just print our way out of it, but I dont really look forward to runaway inflation and a dollar value dropping like a rock.

Al Queda is absolutely right. They can win by "outfinancing" us. They find a recrtuit who fights for free and brought his own AK. We have a soldier that we spent hundreds of thousands to train, equip, ship and support.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 10:39:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2005 10:59:47 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
Its not a matter of whether or not I WANT to afford it, or whether or not I WANT to pay for it.
Its a matter of we CANT afford it. We cannot afford to keep dumping BILLIONS of dollars into fighting wars. At some point, the money runs out. Its really very, very basic and simple economics.
I appreciate you argueing we need yo go here and there and everywhere, but simple economics says we cannot afford to keep doing it. Its that simple.

Sure, it sounds great, Its looks good on paper. Go here and kick terrorist ass, go there and kick terrorist ass, move over there and remove dicator etc etc. But at some point, the piper must be paid for the tune he plays. America as a nation is already ass deep to a tall indian in debt. When the tab comes, we aint gonna be able to cover it.
Unless of course you think we can just print our way out of it, but I dont really look forward to runaway inflation and a dollar value dropping like a rock.

Al Queda is absolutely right. They can win by "outfinancing" us. They find a recrtuit who fights for free and brought his own AK. We have a soldier that we spent hundreds of thousands to train, equip, ship and support.



But there is no other alternative so...

Also spending on defense has continued to fall in the four years since 9/11, seen www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005919049.asp that means there is a lot of stuff to be cut if cash were to be a problem.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 10:45:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
Its not a matter of whether or not I WANT to afford it, or whether or not I WANT to pay for it.
Its a matter of we CANT afford it. We cannot afford to keep dumping BILLIONS of dollars into fighting wars. At some point, the money runs out. Its really very, very basic and simple economics.
I appreciate you argueing we need yo go here and there and everywhere, but simple economics says we cannot afford to keep doing it. Its that simple.

Sure, it sounds great, Its looks good on paper. Go here and kick terrorist ass, go there and kick terrorist ass, move over there and remove dicator etc etc. But at some point, the piper must be paid for the tune he plays. America as a nation is already ass deep to a tall indian in debt. When the tab comes, we aint gonna be able to cover it.
Unless of course you think we can just print our way out of it, but I dont really look forward to runaway inflation and a dollar value dropping like a rock.

Al Queda is absolutely right. They can win by "outfinancing" us. They find a recrtuit who fights for free and brought his own AK. We have a soldier that we spent hundreds of thousands to train, equip, ship and support.



But there is no other alternative so...



Your right.
Telling the ME to piss off, developing our own energy sources or buying from non ME countries......God forbid. Granted, the American Public might have to make some sacrafices (You know, what they did in WWII....) and we cant have that. Its our RIGHT to drive ridiculously oversized inefficient vehicles, and our RIGHT to keep our thermostat on 80 during the winter and on 60 in the summer, and our RIGHT to have 9 bulbs over the kitchen table and 8 in the bathroom.

The reason we cant win is because America has forgotten the words "sacrafice" in terms of our daily lives. Today, we think of sacrafice as a soldier giving his life for his country. And it is, God knows. But to ME, sacrafice is giving up the Expedition for a Jetta and switching out to efficient bulbs (And less of them) and wearing a sweater in the winter so an American soldier doesnt have to go overseas.

As such, we're in a war we cannot win. We either lose by not destroying the enemy (Which technically we may never fully accomplish) or we lose by destroying our economy in trying to acheive success in an unwinnable war.

So, what you say is absolutely right. We have no choice.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 10:54:24 PM EDT
That's nice, but we are not operating with a one for one exchange rate. We kill at least 20 of theirs for every one of ours. Also, we won't have the large footprint in Iraq forever.

I consider those five linked esays mandatory reading.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 10:56:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2005 11:08:38 PM EDT by AROptics]
Megalomania is an unrealistic belief in one's superiority, grandiose abilities, and even omnipotence. It is characterized by a need for total power and control over others, and is marked by a lack of empathy for anything that is perceived as not feeding the self.

It is characterized by extremely low self-esteem, which is compensated for by delusions of grandeur and megalomania, a narcissistic neuroses. With the propensity to act only on behalf of one's self, the unbridled need to feed one's ego, and the objectification of others to serve the power-hungry needs of megalomania, it is easy to see how this can be a recipe for disaster.

They objectify, then sacrifice their victims to exercise total control with a complete lack of empathy for the suffering of others.

Among fundamentalists, and politicians we find those who view themselves as morally superior with the willingness to sacrifice, kill or risk the safety of others considered inferior, to assert their own agendas.

They talk about unrealistic plans and goals as if these plans and goals are within their grasp.

Megalomania can all be treated with medications. If you or someone you know is experiencing unrealistic delusions or antisocial behavior, treatment is necessary.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 10:57:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
That's nice, but we are not operating with a one for one exchange rate. We kill at least 20 of theirs for every one of ours. Also, we won't have the large footprint in Iraq forever.

I consider those five linked esays mandatory reading.



Which means fuck all if they can just waltz the next 19 terrorists right across our border.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 11:08:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
That's nice, but we are not operating with a one for one exchange rate. We kill at least 20 of theirs for every one of ours. Also, we won't have the large footprint in Iraq forever.

I consider those five linked esays mandatory reading.



Which means fuck all if they can just waltz the next 19 terrorists right across our border.



The need for more border security does not invalidate what is written in those articles.

We need to wall off the border AND we need to eliminate Islamic terror.

Getting rid of Islamic terror makes border security easier, but there would still be a need for a border fence and a real border police.

NOT getting rid of Islami terror would DEMAND a border wall and large border police and it probably would still eventually fail..

They are interrelated- but NOT interdependent- issues.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 11:17:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
That's nice, but we are not operating with a one for one exchange rate. We kill at least 20 of theirs for every one of ours. Also, we won't have the large footprint in Iraq forever.

I consider those five linked esays mandatory reading.



Which means fuck all if they can just waltz the next 19 terrorists right across our border.



The need for more border security does not invalidate what is written in those articles.

We need to wall off the border AND we need to eliminate Islamic terror.

Getting rid of Islamic terror makes border security easier, but there would still be a need for a border fence and a real border police.

NOT getting rid of Islami terror would DEMAND a border wall and large border police and it probably would still eventually fail..

They are interrelated- but NOT interdependent- issues.



So essentially we're throwing billions of dollars right down the toilet for the simple reason that we refuse to secure our own border.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 11:19:47 PM EDT
What can we possibly win by staying in Iraq any longer?
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 11:24:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2005 11:35:00 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
What can we possibly win by staying in Iraq any longer?



Look at a map. We need perminant bases in the region.

also:

We can still lose this war.


If nation building in Iraq fails, we won't succeed in demonstrating that reform can work for Arabs and make them happier and more successful. We will fail to show them that reform is a better choice for them than jihad.


If we permit low level resistance in Iraq to drive us out, the Arab street will once again conclude that we are ultimately cowardly, and will again feel contempt for us. And no nation or group in the region will ever again take the risk of helping us in any future operation there.


If other nations in the region don't implement reforms, their people will continue to be angry and will continue to support terrorism and extremism.


If the other nations in the region don't cut off support for terrorist groups, those groups will continue to have the wherewithal to operate, and may eventually target us.


If we do not bring about general reform before one or another nation in the region successfully develops nuclear weapons, the political situation will become vastly more complicated and we will be in extreme peril. It will become extremely difficult for us to continue to foster reform in the region, and there will be an unacceptably high likelihood that one of our cities will eventually be nuked.


It is therefore critical that we continue to be engaged in the region and continue to work for reform there, doing whatever we must to prevent development of nukes by hostile nations in the region and continuing to work to weaken existing terrorist organizations. We are winning the war but we have not won it. It will take decades to win, just as the Cold War took decades to win. The greatest danger facing us now is that we'll lose heart and give up before we finish the job.



For more details see Sections VI and VIII of the Original and Updated Strategic Overviews.
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 11:26:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2005 11:43:47 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
That's nice, but we are not operating with a one for one exchange rate. We kill at least 20 of theirs for every one of ours. Also, we won't have the large footprint in Iraq forever.

I consider those five linked esays mandatory reading.



Which means fuck all if they can just waltz the next 19 terrorists right across our border.



The need for more border security does not invalidate what is written in those articles.

We need to wall off the border AND we need to eliminate Islamic terror.

Getting rid of Islamic terror makes border security easier, but there would still be a need for a border fence and a real border police.

NOT getting rid of Islami terror would DEMAND a border wall and large border police and it probably would still eventually fail..

They are interrelated- but NOT interdependent- issues.



So essentially we're throwing billions of dollars right down the toilet for the simple reason that we refuse to secure our own border.



"Securing" the border without prosecuting the war would also be throwing away billions down the toilet.


7. Avoiding the Islamic War by Winning the Terrorist War
Because we are large, lumbering, impatient and somnambulant our enemy depends on these factors to defeat us. He uses the opportunities of Freedom in order to make war upon it. He is able to infiltrate our society and institutions. He is able to be infinitely patient. He plans for the decades while we can barely manage to plan from one fiscal quarter to the next.


This is a war that will play out over years and will not be resolved in months. In order to gain victory and defeat our enemy we must put in place policies and strategies that cannot easily be altered by reports, polls, or election cycles. In order to achieve this we must be, as we were in the Second World War, united in purpose. It is, sadly, the nature of our society today that September 11th's unity was fleeting. To find this unity we must suffer through one more horrendous attack the nature and timing of which will not be of our choosing.

Still, as surely as the next attack will come, so will the unity that it creates in its wake and at that point the full power of Freedom’s Arsenal will at last be used to defend it. This is the social and political conundrum that confronts us in the First Terrorist War. And this is why the war must be divorced from ‘process’ and the goal of victory be cut into the stone of the American soul.

During the Second World War, our system, with few alterations, brought us through to a peace in which there were greater freedoms than before the war. Victory validated our way of life. Not only were our freedoms intact in 1945 but they were poised, with the economy, for a great expansion throughout the rest of the century and into this. If you had proposed, in the summer of 1946, that within 50 years all minorities would be fully enfranchised, that women would be fully liberated, and that homosexuals would be a dominant force with their enfranchisement only a moment away, you would have been dismissed as a socialist dreamer. And yet, here we are.

The same situation can also be envisioned as the result of our victory in the First Terrorist War at the end of a less-clear but no less threatening passage of arms. But this will only happen if we remain clear about the real nature of the First Terrorist War, and committed to unequivocal victory regardless of the costs in lives and treasure. Only by matching the determination of our enemy to destroy us will we prevail. The only thing that can defeat us are a dull reliance on management, a fascination with process rather than victory and the reluctance to believe the extent to which our enemy desires our annihilation.

Beyond victory in the First Terrorist War is a greater goal. What we must seek is not merely the "control" and "containment" of terror, for terror in this guise cannot be controlled or contained. We must come to the deeper understanding that only a complete victory over the global Radical Islamic forces can prevent the onset of a confrontation more terrible than the current war.

What we must press for in the Terrorist War is a victory so decisive that we can, in the end, avoid the larger war lurking on the not-so-distant horizon - - a true war between civilizations. That war, should it come, will not take the name of The Terrorist War, but of The Islamic War.

The Terrorist War is still a struggle that can be fought and won with conventional means. An Islamic War, should it come, would engulf the world and be anything but conventional.


americandigest.org/mt-archives/003097.php
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 11:35:26 PM EDT
Koolaid...mmmm.......
Link Posted: 11/14/2005 11:45:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
What can we possibly win by staying in Iraq any longer?



Look at a map. We need perminant bases in the region. We have those already. Israel and the United Arab Emirates spring readily to mind.

also:

We can still lose this war.

What war is that? The one we're only fighting because we're in Iraq? And don't give me that crap about Iraq being part of the war on terror. The reason President Bush said we were going to war was in order to disarm Iraq of its WMDs. I watched him say it in a public address shortly before the campaign began. The current mess we're in is NOT related to that mission. We accomplished that mission long ago.

Or is this really about nation-building. I thought the President said he didn't believe in nation-building...



If nation building in Iraq fails, we won't succeed in demonstrating that reform can work for Arabs and make them happier and more successful. We will fail to show them that reform is a better choice for them than jihad. oh ok. I guess it is about nation-building now.


If we permit low level resistance in Iraq to drive us out, the Arab street will once again conclude that we are ultimately cowardly, and will again feel contempt for us. And no nation or group in the region will ever again take the risk of helping us in any future operation there.

So we should prove them wrong by completing a mission the President specifically said he didn't want? (nation-building) What will the Arabs in the other countries think when this shit is still going on in 5 years?


If other nations in the region don't implement reforms, their people will continue to be angry and will continue to support terrorism and extremism.

So now its our job to implement political and social reform in other nations? Since when did we even have a right to do that? What if they don't WANT our reforms? I hate to break this to you, but they AREN'T Americans no matter how much we want them to be. No amount of money or military pressure we dump on them is going to change the way they think.


If the other nations in the region don't cut off support for terrorist groups, those groups will continue to have the wherewithal to operate, and may eventually target us.

Actually, I agree we need to stop other nations from sponsoring terrorists against us. How exactly is staying in Iraq going to accomplish this again? We should be pounding those countries which are acting against us through surrogate terrorists directly. Worked with Libya pretty good and we didn't get involved in a drawn-out ground conflict either.


If we do not bring about general reform before one or another nation in the region successfully develops nuclear weapons, the political situation will become vastly more complicated and we will be in extreme peril. It will become extremely difficult for us to continue to foster reform in the region, and there will be an unacceptably high likelihood that one of our cities will eventually be nuked.
Iran already has nukes. Once again, we need to be punishing those nations we know are attacking or threatening to attack us. Like Iran. Did I mention Iran has nukes and seems really angry with us?

It is therefore critical that we continue to be engaged in the region and continue to work for reform there, doing whatever we must to prevent development of nukes by hostile nations in the region and continuing to work to weaken existing terrorist organizations. We are winning the war but we have not won it. It will take decades to win, just as the Cold War took decades to win. The greatest danger facing us now is that we'll lose heart and give up before we finish the job.

How are we currently preventing other nations from developing nukes by being in Iraq?? Once again, the initial invasion of Iraq and the destruction of the Baathis regime accomplished this. Game over, we win, they lose. Iraq is no longer a serious threat. So what are we doing there now that prevents places like Iran from developing nukes?


Link Posted: 11/14/2005 11:54:18 PM EDT
Andy

If Iran already has nukes, and I do not beleve they do, then we must invade Iran which REQUIRES Iraq as well as Afghanistan and the ocean as routes to invade.

Same with Syria.

Attacks from the sea alone could be countered simply by retreating inland and trading space for time.

With the US in Iraq and Afganistan heavy ground forces have direct access from multple directions, they cannot simply retreat inland and trade space for time.

There is no geography to keep US heavy divisions from driving through Syria or Iran if they start in Iraq.

Isreal cannot be used always as a base for attack, not yet, because the Arab public still has not unlearned the anti-Jewish propaganda.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 12:06:06 AM EDT
ooooookay.


Who said we had to conduct a massive ground invasion to halt nuclear development?


Here's a little reality check I think you need to make. Listen to a copy of the President'saddress he made right before the war began. Write down why he says we're invading Iraq.

Then get a current speech or public response to the same question and compare notes.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 12:44:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2005 12:45:21 AM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Andy

If Iran already has nukes, and I do not beleve they do, then we must invade Iran which REQUIRES Iraq as well as Afghanistan and the ocean as routes to invade.

Same with Syria.

Attacks from the sea alone could be countered simply by retreating inland and trading space for time.

With the US in Iraq and Afganistan heavy ground forces have direct access from multple directions, they cannot simply retreat inland and trade space for time.

There is no geography to keep US heavy divisions from driving through Syria or Iran if they start in Iraq.

Isreal cannot be used always as a base for attack, not yet, because the Arab public still has not unlearned the anti-Jewish propaganda.



Are you smoking crack. You are obviously very unaware of just how mountainous the border region between Iran and Iraq is. The same goes for the Iranian border with Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 1:44:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
I'm no longer concerned with why we're fighting, or even who we're fighting for that matter.

I'm concerned with how we're going to pay for it.



How did we pay for World War II.




With a dollar backed by gold.
Not with credit from the Chinese.




Ouch, a painful reality. The 90's were good to the Chicoms
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 2:10:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2005 3:33:59 AM EDT by remedy]
I think it would be awesome that instead of invading other countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, we moved all ground forces into Afghanistan to finish the FIRST fucking mission we had laid out, to find and remove Osama and his top guys.

Then, return home and dump all the money into better airport security systems, better border patrol, a fucking car that doesn't run on gasoline, a fucking REAL border with Canada and Mexico that is heavily policed, and a more improved CIA that can infiltrate Al Queda worldwide and call in precision SF-raids or tactical air-strikes.

We're in Iraq right now because of oil and Rumsfeld should have been fired for not having a post-invasion insurgency plan and more troops on the ground there initially to stem the flow from Syria and Iran. We're so fucked it isn't even funny. No oil flowing because of daily sabotage, massive debt building, loss of troops, more instability, dropping morale, waning domestic support, and the list goes on.

ETA: It's disgusting that people who have nothing to do with the war seem to think we have unlimited money, troops and support to just go around invading other countries on a whim. It's rediculous. Hell we can't even make our military recruit quotas. I think people that say these things need to go experience a year in Iraq, away from their comfortable little homes and families and then come back and say that crap.

ETA: I 100% support our troops, this is just my "perfect world" opinion of what we should do or should've done. As it stands now I think our President should heed the advice of the CIA situation reports and the Generals on the ground, if they say it is becoming a lost cause then we need to hand it over to the Iraqi military and perform only air-support. The biggest problem was/is the border with Iran and Syria, and Iraq may be a lost cause already...

- rem
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 2:51:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By remedy:
I think it would be awesome that instead of invading other countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, we moved all ground forces into Afghanistan to finish the FIRST fucking mission we had laid out, to find and remove Osama and his top guys.

Then, return home and dump all the money into better airport security systems, better border patrol, a fucking car that doesn't run on gasoline, a fucking REAL border with Canada and Mexico that is heavily policed, and a more improved CIA that can infiltrate Al Queda worldwide and call in precision SF-raids or tactical air-strikes.

We're in Iraq right now because of oil and Rumsfeld should have been fired for not having a post-invasion insurgency plan and more troops on the ground there initially to stem the flow from Syria and Iran. We're so fucked it isn't even funny. No oil flowing because of daily sabotage, massive debt building, loss of troops, more instability, dropping morale, waning domestic support, and the list goes on.

ETA: It's disgusting that people who have nothing to do with the war seem to think we have unlimited money, troops and support to just go around invading other countries on a whim. It's rediculous. Hell we can't even make our military recruit quotas. I think people that say these things need to go experience a year in Iraq, away from their comfortable little homes and families and then come back and say that crap.


- rem



Damn, your one brave sonofabitch to say that here.......

I'll let you use my flame suit.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 3:51:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2005 3:51:29 AM EDT by remedy]

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
Damn, your one brave sonofabitch to say that here.......

I'll let you use my flame suit.



Hey, I'm as gungho as anyone else here but I don't appreciate being lied to about why we went into Iraq, especially with all our other problems in America. Richest nation in the world yet we can't get healthcare subsidized by the govt? Subject to one of the largest terrorist attacks known in history and yet we have a completely open border to both the north and south? Billions of dollars continually spent to support a war that cant even drop our fuel prices and get a working pipeline going? I knew there were no WMD going in to Iraq, but I figured we would at least have such a force that would seal the borders and quickly promote rebuilding and restructuring. This govt is clueless, they have left a lot of our guys swinging in the wind because of it. I mean North Korea has one of the most opressive and insane governments in the world yet of course we didn't invade them right? We just pissed them off worse by the new administration not continuing their deal concerning the nuclear reactors, and calling them part of the axis of evil. Smart. This administration should have finished what was started in Afghanistan and then focused on rebuilding OUR nation, not someone else's.

- rem
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 3:55:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2005 3:56:04 AM EDT by copenhagen]

Originally Posted By remedy:
I think it would be awesome that instead of invading other countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, we moved all ground forces into Afghanistan to finish the FIRST fucking mission we had laid out, to find and remove Osama and his top guys.

Then, return home and dump all the money into better airport security systems, better border patrol, a fucking car that doesn't run on gasoline, a fucking REAL border with Canada and Mexico that is heavily policed, and a more improved CIA that can infiltrate Al Queda worldwide and call in precision SF-raids or tactical air-strikes.

We're in Iraq right now because of oil and Rumsfeld should have been fired for not having a post-invasion insurgency plan and more troops on the ground there initially to stem the flow from Syria and Iran. We're so fucked it isn't even funny. No oil flowing because of daily sabotage, massive debt building, loss of troops, more instability, dropping morale, waning domestic support, and the list goes on.

ETA: It's disgusting that people who have nothing to do with the war seem to think we have unlimited money, troops and support to just go around invading other countries on a whim. It's rediculous. Hell we can't even make our military recruit quotas. I think people that say these things need to go experience a year in Iraq, away from their comfortable little homes and families and then come back and say that crap.

ETA: I 100% support our troops, this is just my "perfect world" opinion of what we should do or should've done. As it stands now I think our President should heed the advice of the CIA situation reports and the Generals on the ground, if they say it is becoming a lost cause then we need to hand it over to the Iraqi military and perform only air-support. The biggest problem was/is the border with Iran and Syria, and Iraq may be a lost cause already...

- rem



Your not going to finish anything in Afganistan by moving in more US troops. There are several reasons. 1 Terrain-Whole divisions can be swallowed up by the rugged terrain. Simply moving in more troops is not the answer. 2. The bad guys use the Pakistan border to their advantage. They move in across the border and back. 3. We cannot invade Pakistan because if the present government falls you are turning over nukes to the terrorists.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 4:05:08 AM EDT
One of the major problems I have with this war in Iraq is that the outcome is being based on faith in the Iraqi people to govern themselves in a quasi-democracy. I do not have that faith in those people. And because I don't have faith in the Iraqi people, I believe the debt we are running up is WAY too much. I'd like to see us finish cleaning house in Afghanistan. I'd like to see us wrap it up quickly in Iraq and have these people show a little appreciation for our effort, say...$250 billion in oil. I'd also like us to invest a lot more in securing our home. This bullshit of unchecked ILLEGAL immigration has got to end. Our fighting men and women have done their job and done it well. At some point we are going to have to say enough is enough with the spending in a region that has NEVER been able to approach anything that resembled civilization. As I said before, I simply do not have faith in these people as a whole. Sooner or later, those who desire a life of freedom will have to step up to the plate and bat for themselves. I see fear being stronger than a desire for freedom in much of that region. They are not earning their freedom, the US is handing it to them. Two things result from this, they don't really understand the price of freedom, and the bullies will be there waiting for them when the US leaves. Just my opinion.

Oh, also...one thing that I asked a few weeks back is does anyone even know if OBL is even still alive? That question was posed a few days after the earthquake in Pakistan.

Blake
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 4:06:02 AM EDT


Originally Posted By remedy:
finish the FIRST fucking mission we had laid out, to find and remove Osama and his top guys.


+1 googolplex
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 4:06:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2005 4:09:39 AM EDT by remedy]

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
Your not going to finish anything in Afganistan by moving in more US troops. There are several reasons. 1 Terrain-Whole divisions can be swallowed up by the rugged terrain. Simply moving in more troops is not the answer. 2. The bad guys use the Pakistan border to their advantage. They move in across the border and back. 3. We cannot invade Pakistan because if the present government falls you are turning over nukes to the terrorists.



Yes, those are good points and are correct, but how many troops do we have up near the Pakistan border looking for Osama? Surely there can be some military moves we can make up there to shut down some of those strongholds they operate out of. What about gunships? Drones? How much effort is still being made up there? Seems to me we gave up pretty early on, and for what reason? We quickly shifted the focus to Iraq, while everyone was still on the patriotic-avenge-911 bandwagon. It was a very clever move by the Bush administration.

Not a good day to die - the untold story of operation anaconda

That book has a lot of good information on how strapped a lot of guys in charge were on the ground in Afghanistan and how there was a lack of direction and unity in the search for Osama, fall of the Taliban and all that. It really seems like this administration was not at all committed to exacting justice for 9/11 against those responsible.

I've heard discussions that claimed 12,000-15,000 troops are injured to the point of not returning to action. Is that really worth it for Iraq? When you lose an arm or a leg, you have a lot of time to sit there and reflect on your past and future, and I have to wonder if those brave guys ever question what the hell we are doing over there now. I know soldiers have to find something to fight for, whether it is just the people in their sector getting caught in the crossfire, or wanting to meet the enemy face to face, but the overall picture of why we are still in Iraq given everything we know now is very bleak.

- rem
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 4:07:06 AM EDT
... We need to stay in Iraq, we need to finish the job.

... But our policy on how to accomplish it requires a serious rethinking. We got too preoccupied with the notion we need to "win the hearts and minds" and media perception - our enemies know that.

... Wars aren't won pussy-footing and tiptoeing in localized skirmishes. The war would be better managed if we had men that subscribed to the philosophies combining the likes of General "Black Jack" Pershing, Sun Tzu and George Patton. And an Administration that let them do the job they're hires to.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 4:17:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2005 4:18:39 AM EDT by copenhagen]

Originally Posted By remedy:

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
Your not going to finish anything in Afganistan by moving in more US troops. There are several reasons. 1 Terrain-Whole divisions can be swallowed up by the rugged terrain. Simply moving in more troops is not the answer. 2. The bad guys use the Pakistan border to their advantage. They move in across the border and back. 3. We cannot invade Pakistan because if the present government falls you are turning over nukes to the terrorists.



Yes, those are good points and are correct, but how many troops do we have up near the Pakistan border looking for Osama? Surely there can be some military moves we can make up there to shut down some of those strongholds they operate out of. What about gunships? Drones? How much effort is still being made up there? Seems to me we gave up pretty early on, and for what reason? We quickly shifted the focus to Iraq, while everyone was still on the patriotic-avenge-911 bandwagon. It was a very clever move by the Bush administration.

Not a good day to die - the untold story of operation anaconda

That book has a lot of good information on how strapped a lot of guys in charge were on the ground in Afghanistan and how there was a lack of direction and unity in the search for Osama, fall of the Taliban and all that. It really seems like this administration was not at all committed to exacting justice for 9/11 against those responsible.

- rem



Operation Anaconda didnt go well. We thought we could trust the Northern Alliance and Bin Laden bought out a few of them and slipped over the border from what I have heard. According to Col Hunt on Fox news the Marines should of been used instead of the 10th Mountain. The 10th Mountain siezed the low terrain and got pinned down immediately. They should of taken the highest terrain and then fought down. This was poor military tactics by the commander on the scene. This was Hunts analysis of the battle.
The US military has learned a lot since then about fighting in Afganistan. The terrorists are actually pretty much been downgraded to operating on foot or a donkey. No vehicles at all.

Bin Ladin if he is alive isnt going to go out on operations and risk getting smoked by our military. He is going to stay in Pakistan in the Frontier providence and sent other people across the border to do his bidding.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 4:36:39 AM EDT
"Take More countries?"

I didn't know we were "taking" anything. No wonder we're seen as imperialists.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 4:47:36 AM EDT
Tag.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 4:52:01 AM EDT
tag for later. Thanks ArmdLbrl.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 4:59:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
Operation Anaconda didnt go well. We thought we could trust the Northern Alliance and Bin Laden bought out a few of them and slipped over the border from what I have heard. According to Col Hunt on Fox news the Marines should of been used instead of the 10th Mountain. The 10th Mountain siezed the low terrain and got pinned down immediately. They should of taken the highest terrain and then fought down. This was poor military tactics by the commander on the scene. This was Hunts analysis of the battle.
The US military has learned a lot since then about fighting in Afganistan. The terrorists are actually pretty much been downgraded to operating on foot or a donkey. No vehicles at all.

Bin Ladin if he is alive isnt going to go out on operations and risk getting smoked by our military. He is going to stay in Pakistan in the Frontier providence and sent other people across the border to do his bidding.



Again, good points, I just still feel cheated by Bush and the fact that bin Laden's head wasn't on a stick at the end of it. I could give a shit less about Saddam, he was just a sabre-rattling old fool. Hell, he never even gassed the Kurds, it was fucking Iran and everyone in the "know" knows that. That's why his trial is bullshit and they are finding it hard to charge him with anything more than just some death warrants he signed, which he had every right to do since it was his country and there were some reasons for them. Personally I feel like Saddam is going to have a nasty "accident" of some sorts before the trial ends. He's going to die suspiciously and no one will hear his side of the story.

- rem
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 5:04:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By copenhagen:

Originally Posted By remedy:

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
Your not going to finish anything in Afganistan by moving in more US troops. There are several reasons. 1 Terrain-Whole divisions can be swallowed up by the rugged terrain. Simply moving in more troops is not the answer. 2. The bad guys use the Pakistan border to their advantage. They move in across the border and back. 3. We cannot invade Pakistan because if the present government falls you are turning over nukes to the terrorists.



Yes, those are good points and are correct, but how many troops do we have up near the Pakistan border looking for Osama? Surely there can be some military moves we can make up there to shut down some of those strongholds they operate out of. What about gunships? Drones? How much effort is still being made up there? Seems to me we gave up pretty early on, and for what reason? We quickly shifted the focus to Iraq, while everyone was still on the patriotic-avenge-911 bandwagon. It was a very clever move by the Bush administration.

Not a good day to die - the untold story of operation anaconda

That book has a lot of good information on how strapped a lot of guys in charge were on the ground in Afghanistan and how there was a lack of direction and unity in the search for Osama, fall of the Taliban and all that. It really seems like this administration was not at all committed to exacting justice for 9/11 against those responsible.

- rem



Operation Anaconda didnt go well. We thought we could trust the Northern Alliance and Bin Laden bought out a few of them and slipped over the border from what I have heard. According to Col Hunt on Fox news the Marines should of been used instead of the 10th Mountain. The 10th Mountain siezed the low terrain and got pinned down immediately. They should of taken the highest terrain and then fought down. This was poor military tactics by the commander on the scene. This was Hunts analysis of the battle.
The US military has learned a lot since then about fighting in Afganistan. The terrorists are actually pretty much been downgraded to operating on foot or a donkey. No vehicles at all.

Bin Ladin if he is alive isnt going to go out on operations and risk getting smoked by our military. He is going to stay in Pakistan in the Frontier providence and sent other people across the border to do his bidding.



The largest problem with Anaconda was a situation very similar to the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

Everyone was more concerned with not making contact with the enemy than what we would do if we did make contact with them.

Rushed planning, jumping on bad intel without waiting for corroberation from recconnassance.

And a good bit of not having fully shaken off the rust in transitioning from a peacetime to a wartime army.

Thats what I got from my reading...

And we certainly have not "given up" on tracking down Al Qaida and bin Laden in Pakistan. Unfortunately we have not "given up" on Musharrif yet either... and HE and his patchwork goverment we keep propping up soley because if it falls somone else might get to their nuclear weapons before we do... or at least thats the way it seems.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 5:13:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 5:21:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 5:28:16 AM EDT
It's a very well-spoken article that evokes a lot of feeling but the point is we are in Iraq because of a lie. We were there to prevent Saddam from giving WMD to terrorists or possibly launching WMD at America. It all turned out to be bogus intel that the Bush administration knew about. There was obviously an ulterior motive and several from the administration have said that they had a plan before 9/11 happened to go into Iraq. The civil war was a war that was very important and a war worth fighting. So was WW2, we had no choice. But with Iraq, we invaded a country based on a lie, and now we find ourselves bogged down in a quagmire of guerilla warfare, with an almost unseen enemy that attacks us at will, breaking our morale and holding up peace and reconstruction. We stay, we lose or our country goes broke. We back-out and it becomes a big vacuum, sucking up the enemy to take over and gain a larger foothold. We BROUGHT the enemy to Iraq. We need more support from other countries and they are unwilling to give it. Our military is stretched thin. We are caught in a very bad spot because of Bush.

- rem


Originally Posted By Surf:
Add this one:

www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000039.html

Link Posted: 11/15/2005 5:39:04 AM EDT

we don't even take care of our own country. the LAST thing we need to do is invade more. in the past four years, i've come to believe we are a bigger threat to ourselves (illegal immigration, out of control welfare, absurd spending) than any foreign country would be.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 6:14:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 7:07:10 AM EDT
The people who scream with joy each time a terrorist executes a successful attack HAVE TO BE SILENCED. They are the ones offering the very highest status their Islamic-based culture can offer--kill ten terrorists and there are ten more eager to stand in the spotlight of highest status. One way or another, that terrorist-goading culture has to be modified or naturally, these attacks won't stop...ever.

There's a hard way and an easy way to silence those crowds: The easy way is to kill them on a sudden, sustained, and massive scale; making them realize that there will be none of them left in the end to remember how brave and defiant there people were as they fought The Great Satan, thereby taking the violent wind out of their cultural sails.

The hard way is to invade their homelands while avoiding killing them as much as possible. For this to work, the invaders have to bring with them a better way of life--at least a tolerable way--but also bringing with them the political will and clear intention of a long term occupation; several successive generations--sort of the Roman way. A long term occupation after a realtively bloodless invasion will have a chance of succeeding so that today's six-year-olds can pursue that better way of life with the occupation forces protect him from the adults who would rather their children die than yield to Satan's ways. Then, that six-year-old's children will need to be protected from his peers, whose parents were successful in shielding their children from exposure to The Great Satan's ways. Slowly, after a few generations, those exposed to the better way will out-number the fanatics; they will be educated; they will understand--indeed they will know that this better way should be protected, and will act to preserve that better life themselves with their treasure and blood.

Deceptively simple.

Kissing their asses cannot possibly work on peoples who only have respect for the might of the iron fist.
Link Posted: 11/15/2005 7:10:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By remedy:
I think it would be awesome that instead of invading other countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, we moved all ground forces into Afghanistan to finish the FIRST fucking mission we had laid out, to find and remove Osama and his top guys.



Another contribution from someone who knows exactly nothing about Afghanistan.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top