Those who support our approach to the War on Terrorism, consider...

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Those who support our approach to the War on Terrorism, consider... (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 8/1/2005 5:39:27 AM EDT

- The time span from 9/11 until now is greater than the time between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the end of WWII, and

- WWII was fought against the most powerful fascist dictatorship in history AND a very powerful, fanatical empire which openly armed its suicide bombers (kamikazes) with fully loaded military aircraft.

The difference between then and now is philosophy, pure and simple. We as a nation haven't the courage (through moral certainty) to fight this the way it must be fought, the way WWII was fought. Until/unless we are willing to actually destroy the state sponsors of terrorism, as opposed to simply threatening as President Bush has repeatedly done, we can't win.

Posted: 8/1/2005 5:53:33 AM EDT

[#1]

Yawn.

ZZZzzzzzzz

Posted: 8/1/2005 5:54:58 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Yawn.

ZZZzzzzzzz

+1

Posted: 8/1/2005 5:55:44 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Yawn.

ZZZzzzzzzz

Yeah, that seems to be the nation's attitude.

Posted: 8/1/2005 5:56:50 AM EDT

[#4]

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:01:03 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yawn.

ZZZzzzzzzz

Yeah, that seems to be the nation's attitude.

What do you suggest? Reinstate the draft, implement a rationing system, night-time black outs, air raid drills? Perhaps we should invade every muslim country and those with a muslim populus? Better yet, how about we just nuke everyone that doesn't like us. That should do it.

I don't think you are in touch with the nation's attitude. I served, my younger brother volunteered for the Army and in getting deployed again in November. No complaints here. Everywhere I go, I see overwhelming support for the troops, except when I (rarely) watch the network news.

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:28:59 AM EDT

[#6]

Someone here doesn't seem to understand the difference between fighting a declared, conventional war against organized countries with governments and uniformed militaries, and fighting against guerilla terrorists who are hiding among the populations of a wide number of countries (including our own).

If you can't figure out that these two vastly different types of enemy require a different type of fighting, well, I can't help you.

-Troy

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:42:43 AM EDT

[#7]

Bogus comparison. I had a rat in my kitchen. I dispatched it in one overwhelming blow. Victory was achieved with a single large expenditure of effort. I also have sugar ants popping up all over the place. I have to spot the ants, figure out where they're coming from (often following a trail all the way down and halfway around a 2 story house), locate the mound, and take it out. Over and over. I guess I could just burn the house down.

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:43:43 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Someone here doesn't seem to understand the difference between fighting a declared, conventional war against organized countries with governments and uniformed militaries, and fighting against guerilla terrorists who are hiding among the populations of a wide number of countries (including our own).

So you're asserting that the terrorists are operating on their own, without backing from any established nations?

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:44:18 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Bogus comparison. I had a rat in my kitchen. I dispatched it in one overwhelming blow. Victory was achieved with a single large expenditure of effort. I also have sugar ants popping up all over the place. I have to spot the ants, figure out where they're coming from (often following a trail all the way down and halfway around a 2 story house), locate the mound, and take it out. Over and over. I guess I could just burn the house down.

Excellent analogy.

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:45:56 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone here doesn't seem to understand the difference between fighting a declared, conventional war against organized countries with governments and uniformed militaries, and fighting against guerilla terrorists who are hiding among the populations of a wide number of countries (including our own).

So you're asserting that the terrorists are operating on their own, without backing from any established nations?

No that isn't what I read of Troy's post. But, in case you haven't been following the war on terror, we are waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq...both nations openly sponsored terrorism.

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:49:18 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Someone here doesn't seem to understand the difference between fighting a declared, conventional war against organized countries with governments and uniformed militaries, and fighting against guerilla terrorists who are hiding among the populations of a wide number of countries (including our own).

If you can't figure out that these two vastly different types of enemy require a different type of fighting, well, I can't help you.

-Troy

Exactly. And how many attacks have happened in America since 9/11??

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:49:38 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
- The time span from 9/11 until now is greater than the time between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the end of WWII, and

- WWII was fought against the most powerful fascist dictatorship in history AND a very powerful, fanatical empire which openly armed its suicide bombers (kamikazes) with fully loaded military aircraft.

The difference between then and now is philosophy, pure and simple. We as a nation haven't the courage (through moral certainty) to fight this the way it must be fought, the way WWII was fought. Until/unless we are willing to actually destroy the state sponsors of terrorism, as opposed to simply threatening as President Bush has repeatedly done, we can't win.

Right on, nice post. However, I still think WE CAN WIN. May need to change tactics.

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:52:01 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Exactly. And how many attacks have happened in America since 9/11??

Do the DC snipers count?

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:52:48 AM EDT

[#14]

I hate idiot level logical arguments. Have you noticed how we haven't been running around fire-bombing cities and nuking people? Seen any gas-ration cards? We built one lousy internment camp in Cuba, rather than rounding up all the Muslims and shipping them off.

We haven't declared war on the whole damn world.

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:52:48 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Bogus comparison. I had a rat in my kitchen. I dispatched it in one overwhelming blow. Victory was achieved with a single large expenditure of effort. I also have sugar ants popping up all over the place. I have to spot the ants, figure out where they're coming from (often following a trail all the way down and halfway around a 2 story house), locate the mound, and take it out. Over and over. I guess I could just burn the house down.

Excellent analogy.

Yes it is. Of course the problem is, we're not taking out the mounds, we're waiting for the ants to bite us and then killing the ones we see. We KNOW where the mounds are, but we don't have the resolve to take 'em out. That's my point.

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:54:17 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone here doesn't seem to understand the difference between fighting a declared, conventional war against organized countries with governments and uniformed militaries, and fighting against guerilla terrorists who are hiding among the populations of a wide number of countries (including our own).

So you're asserting that the terrorists are operating on their own, without backing from any established nations?

No that isn't what I read of Troy's post. But, in case you haven't been following the war on terror, we are waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq...both nations openly sponsored terrorism.

True, but the long-acknowledged PRIMARY sponsors of terrorism, Syria and Iran, are left virtually untouched.

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:56:10 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Someone here doesn't seem to understand the difference between fighting a declared, conventional war against organized countries with governments and uniformed militaries, and fighting against guerilla terrorists who are hiding among the populations of a wide number of countries (including our own).

If you can't figure out that these two vastly different types of enemy require a different type of fighting, well, I can't help you.

-Troy

Couldn't have put it better so +1 from me.

Posted: 8/1/2005 6:57:57 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Exactly. And how many attacks have happened in America since 9/11??

Do the DC snipers count?

no.

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:04:13 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Exactly. And how many attacks have happened in America since 9/11??

Do the DC snipers count?
no.

Why not?

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:04:21 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Someone here doesn't seem to understand the difference between fighting a declared, conventional war against organized countries with governments and uniformed militaries, and fighting against guerilla terrorists who are hiding among the populations of a wide number of countries (including our own).

If you can't figure out that these two vastly different types of enemy require a different type of fighting, well, I can't help you.

-Troy

Nail on the head.

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:10:38 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bogus comparison. I had a rat in my kitchen. I dispatched it in one overwhelming blow. Victory was achieved with a single large expenditure of effort. I also have sugar ants popping up all over the place. I have to spot the ants, figure out where they're coming from (often following a trail all the way down and halfway around a 2 story house), locate the mound, and take it out. Over and over. I guess I could just burn the house down.

Excellent analogy.

Yes it is. Of course the problem is, we're not taking out the mounds, we're waiting for the ants to bite us and then killing the ones we see. We KNOW where the mounds are, but we don't have the resolve to take 'em out. That's my point.

How do you figure? What sites of command/control/origin do we have definite intelligence on, that we've ignored?

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:11:00 AM EDT

[#22]

And what of the reports of several nukes in al-quaeda hands inside the US right now? Will all of you still support our tactics if one of them goes off? Will you still support open borders? Acceptance and encouragement of islamic hate speech? Will the hornets nest in Iraq theory still work? Just food for thought.

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:13:43 AM EDT

[#23]

Big difference between fighting a standing army and a bunch of rag tags who blend in with the public at large.

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:14:47 AM EDT

[#24]

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:20:51 AM EDT

[#25]

WWII we fought against COUNTRIES.

In case you haven't noticed, the terrorists are fighting an assymetrical warfare that transcends country borders.

If can't wrap your head around THAT, then I can't help you.

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:25:41 AM EDT

[#26]

Hell we haven't declared war on anybody. If for no other reason than that alone, this "war" is unjust. The only way this country can go to war is through a declaration or war made by Congress, not unilaterally by the President.

Secondly, as one other poster pointed out, two main safe areas for terrorists, places that house them, help fund them, help train them, etc have been left unharmed and unaffected by this so-called "war on terror." If our leaders were really concerned with securing this country and fighting these people, why not also go after Syria and Iran?

Answer, to finish what George I started and didn't finish, but more importantly, for securing the oil-rich areas of Iraq for use by the US and her allies.

[><]

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:28:28 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
the terrorists are fighting an assymetrical warfare that transcends country borders

Why do we make it so easy for them to blend in and transcend the UNSECURE borders?

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:31:02 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone here doesn't seem to understand the difference between fighting a declared, conventional war against organized countries with governments and uniformed militaries, and fighting against guerilla terrorists who are hiding among the populations of a wide number of countries (including our own).

So you're asserting that the terrorists are operating on their own, without backing from any established nations?

No that isn't what I read of Troy's post. But, in case you haven't been following the war on terror, we are waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq...both nations openly sponsored terrorism.

There are different ways to fight terrorism.

True, but the long-acknowledged PRIMARY sponsors of terrorism, Syria and Iran, are left virtually untouched.

There are different ways to fight terrorism. You can't use military every single time to solve every single problem.

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:33:20 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
And what of the reports of several nukes in al-quaeda hands inside the US right now? Will all of you still support our tactics if one of them goes off? Will you still support open borders? Acceptance and encouragement of islamic hate speech? Will the hornets nest in Iraq theory still work? Just food for thought.

Just bullshit you mean. If Al Quaeda had nukes in the US, they would have used them immediately.

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:33:30 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
the terrorists are fighting an assymetrical warfare that transcends country borders

Why do we make it so easy for them to blend in and transcend the UNSECURE borders?

Because we have to be politically correct. Come on everyone knows that

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:34:00 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Hell we haven't declared war on anybody. If for no other reason than that alone, this "war" is unjust.

....bullshit snip.....

Uhhh, maybe you missed it. Congress voted to authorize use of military force in the nations we are fighting in. You only missed adding "selected not elected" to your drivel.

ETA since we are hung up on declarations:

How do we word this "declaration"? The United States of America declares war on Syria, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Jordan, Yeman, and Pakistan. Whom do we address our declaration to? Is there a Great Council of Terror somewhere sort of like C.L.A.W? Can they affect surrender of their "forces"?

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:53:32 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
And what of the reports of several nukes in al-quaeda hands inside the US right now?
Then they use nuke long time ago.

Will all of you still support our tactics if one of them goes off?
Uhhhh....If it happens, the asshole turns into dust. Guess you have to check his DNA for country he was from, right?

Will you still support open borders?
Wrong forum. Go to DUh.com for opinion.

Acceptance and encouragement of islamic hate speech?
Same as above.

Will the hornets nest in Iraq theory still work? Just food for thought.

Posted: 8/1/2005 7:56:03 AM EDT

[#33]

I agree that there is more we could do, but I'm not sure that even I am ready to start grabbing and executing or interning their families, friends, and neighbors. I'm not far from advocating that, but I'm not there.

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:05:56 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
I agree that there is more we could do, but I'm not sure that even I am ready to start grabbing and executing or interning their families, friends, and neighbors. I'm not far from advocating that, but I'm not there.

To use your analogy, you'd still be killing ants, not the mound.

Would you support nuking a medium-sized city, one each in Syria and Iran, until they stopped supporting the terrorists? If not then I have to ask: were we wrong to nuke Japan to end WWII?

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:10:33 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree that there is more we could do, but I'm not sure that even I am ready to start grabbing and executing or interning their families, friends, and neighbors. I'm not far from advocating that, but I'm not there.

You're still killing ants, not the mound.

Would you support nuking a medium-sized city, one each in Syria and Iran, until they stopped supporting the terrorists? If not then I have to ask: were we wrong to nuke Japan to end WWII?

The Japaneese could effect a surrender of forces they control. Syria can not tell AQ to surrender. Nuking a Syrian city would not produce the desired effect. This is not an army connected to a single government who calls the shots. Syria may provide support and safe haven, but that is far from control.

ETA: You might be able to stop their support since there would be little left of Syria to provide it, but there is a wider world to consider the use of nuclear weapons in, and that would be a move that left us very much alone.

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:16:41 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
that would be a move that left us very much alone.

Any why is that a problem? Seriously. We are more than capable of fighting this entirely alone, if we approach it as we did WWII.

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:16:57 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
And what of the reports of several nukes in al-quaeda hands inside the US right now?
Then they use nuke long time ago.

Will all of you still support our tactics if one of them goes off?
Uhhhh....If it happens, the asshole turns into dust. Guess you have to check his DNA for country he was from, right?

Will you still support open borders?
Wrong forum. Go to DUh.com for opinion.

Acceptance and encouragement of islamic hate speech?
Same as above.

Will the hornets nest in Iraq theory still work? Just food for thought.

Not sure this is really a response.

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:20:00 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
that would be a move that left us very much alone.

Any why is that a problem? Seriously. We are more than capable of fighting this entirely alone, if we approach it as we did WWII.

How the hell can you fight terrorists like it was WWII? Your knowledge of strategic policy, tactics, politics, and history must be very weak.

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:25:02 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
that would be a move that left us very much alone.

Any why is that a problem? Seriously. We are more than capable of fighting this entirely alone, if we approach it as we did WWII.

No we are not. Access to other nations and operations in cooperation with them are vital. While I am secure in the nations military, we would be closing doors in our faces to access the grass roots level of terrorists nor could we sustain a campaign where previously cooperative nations might become openly hostile.

In the case of Japan, bringing them to surrender would certainly end the war, however here we could nuke 5 nations and still not bring the networks to an end. Then for what purpose did you do it?

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:28:23 AM EDT

[#40]

Didn't we take Baghdad in like 20 days?

Weren't there Japs on islands in the S. Pacific who were still fighting the war for like 40 years?

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:30:07 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
How the hell can you fight terrorists like it was WWII?

By crushing the states that support the terrorists. Whether it is a standing army or a guerilla force, there is always a state behind them providing money, arms, food, and/or haven.

Your knowledge of strategic policy, tactics, politics, and history must be very weak.

This is not about tactics. It IS about policy and politics, and about the guiding philosophy. With the exception of Afghanistan, we are unwilling to destroy the governments who are backing the terrorists. History has shown that the destruction of enemy nations is what is required to win a war. In this case that means Syria and Iran.

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:31:41 AM EDT

[#42]

You guys fail to see the big picture.

We are not fighting countries.

We are not fight an organnization.

We are nto fighting a group.

We are fighting a CULTURE.

Changing a culture is a long term thing, but it is the only way to win this battle. For those that ask what of the countries we have not invaded, we are in the backyard and spreading positive change in the neighborhood. It takes time, however.

In the meantime, we have moved the fight into thier backyard. Every man, dollar, weapon, and resource they spend fighting us there is that much less they have to fight us at home.

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:36:13 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
In the case of Japan, bringing them to surrender would certainly end the war, however here we could nuke 5 nations and still not bring the networks to an end. Then for what purpose did you do it?

Without states backing them, the networks would attrit and dry up.

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:38:54 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
In the case of Japan, bringing them to surrender would certainly end the war, however here we could nuke 5 nations and still not bring the networks to an end. Then for what purpose did you do it?

Without states backing them, the networks would attrit and dry up.

If you think states, and not indviduals and various organizations, are the primary backers of these groups you need to get your intel from better sources.

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:52:11 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
And what of the reports of several nukes in al-quaeda hands inside the US right now?
Then they use nuke long time ago.

Will all of you still support our tactics if one of them goes off?
Uhhhh....If it happens, the asshole turns into dust. Guess you have to check his DNA for country he was from, right?

Will you still support open borders?
Wrong forum. Go to DUh.com for opinion.

Acceptance and encouragement of islamic hate speech?
Same as above.

Will the hornets nest in Iraq theory still work? Just food for thought.

Not sure this is really a response.

It's simple, really. If there are nuke in US, terrorists use them already. And if they did, how do you know where exactly they were from and go after the countries supporting them? Liberals, DUh.com support open borders, and islamic hate speech--Most or all of us here don't. Clear enough?

Posted: 8/1/2005 8:53:10 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted: to finish what George I started and didn't finish, but more importantly, for securing the oil-rich areas of Iraq for use by the US and her allies.

You're frigging kidding, right?

Posted: 8/1/2005 9:12:32 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the case of Japan, bringing them to surrender would certainly end the war, however here we could nuke 5 nations and still not bring the networks to an end. Then for what purpose did you do it?

Without states backing them, the networks would attrit and dry up.

If you think states, and not indviduals and various organizations, are the primary backers of these groups you need to get your intel from better sources.

How are the "indviduals and various organizations" getting their funds? How are they getting the funds to the terrorists?

I maintain that there will be very little, if any, real progress made in the war unless/until we show Syria, Iran, and any other states sponsoring the militant Islamic terrorists that we are SERIOUS about taking down state sponsors. Apparently dismantling the Taliban didn't get the point across.

btw, LA_Confederate and his bizarre, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories are not welcome in this thread. If you wanna spout that crap, please spin up your own thread.

Posted: 8/1/2005 9:23:20 AM EDT

[#48]

We don't get serious until France is subjugated and Britain is on the ropes. Not there yet.

In case you forgot, we are also involved in the Forty Years War, aka "War on Drugs." Distracting us a bit.

Posted: 8/1/2005 9:24:44 AM EDT

[#49]

I think what Kill-9 is trying to say is that most modern day Americans do not have the same attitude towards war, and the military as the generation before us. America was able to destroy the nations responsible in the 40's, with the support of the rest of the world, as well as our soldiers sailors and marines who all alos had the support of a nation.

Todays soldiers, sailors and marines while still supported by family and friends and prior service personel as well a large part of the general public, are just not fighting the same kind of war as was faught in WWII. Now our leaders have to consider the fact they we do not have the support of countries who used to be close allies, much less be suported by the rest of the world.

We can say all we like about how we should " get the job done, fu** what everybody else thinks", but ht ebottom line is that america is not self sufficent enough to blow off all foreign governments who disagree with our foreign relations policies.

Posted: 8/1/2005 9:28:45 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Someone here doesn't seem to understand the difference between fighting a declared, conventional war against organized countries with governments and uniformed militaries, and fighting against guerilla terrorists who are hiding among the populations of a wide number of countries (including our own).

If you can't figure out that these two vastly different types of enemy require a different type of fighting, well, I can't help you.

-Troy

+1,000,000

Well said, Troy. Some guys' analytical abilities are amazing for their shallowness.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Those who support our approach to the War on Terrorism, consider... (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us