We take 50% of the B-52s from Barksdale, 50% of the B-2s from Whiteman, 50% of the B-1s from Dyess, load them to the gills, fly over to Iran/Iraq/NK (take your pick) and bomb the living shit out of it until they give up. What would all the Libs have to say about that?
Intriguing.
Tell us about part 2 of your plan.
Do we move in 100,000 men to try to referee the power vacuum? Or do we go home and let China/Russia move in and take that oil and run our prices up to eight bucks a gallon?
Wait a second - you're a low grade subject whose purpose is to 'blow shit up'. Things like economic infrastructure and resource menegement are above your pay scale and cognitive abilities.
We take 50% of the B-52s from Barksdale, 50% of the B-2s from Whiteman, 50% of the B-1s from Dyess, load them to the gills, fly over to Iran/Iraq/NK (take your pick) and bomb the living shit out of it until they give up. What would all the Libs have to say about that?
LMAO, once they give up we waltz in and set up our own government
LMAO, once they give up we waltz in and set up our own government and draft up some PSAs
Nevermind the Libs I'm curious to see what Conservatives have to say about that.
I'd say you and Rummy are on track for worst strategic war planners award. Go down in history as a failure.
We take 50% of the B-52s from Barksdale, 50% of the B-2s from Whiteman, 50% of the B-1s from Dyess, load them to the gills, fly over to Iran/Iraq/NK (take your pick) and bomb the living shit out of it until they give up. What would all the Libs have to say about that?
There is seriously NO motive to win this war, for anyone with a stock portfolio. you think about that.
LMAO, my whole point is that day after day you guys come in here and say the military sucks that we can't beet a bunch of rag heads. Well if we were allowed to use our full force there would be no Iran/Iraq left...It's the politics of war that keep us from suceeding, not the military
LMAO, my whole point is that day after day you guys come in here and say the military sucks that we can't beet a bunch of rag heads. Well if we were allowed to use our full force there would be no Iran/Iraq left...It's the politics of war that keep us from suceeding, not the military
Are those politics dictated to the military by the White House and Congress?
Interesting way to make a point.
Rummy and Bush had nearly unlimited latitude on how to conduct the invasion and aftermath. They dropped the ball in the aftermath.
Unlimited? so if they had carpet bombed like we did in Vietnam everyone would have been cool with that?
In the invasion Carpet bombing wasn't needed. No cope-thunder here.
We toppled a ruling government and defeat it's military in 3-weeks with next to nothing in casualties......what ever we did was exactly what was needed.
Yeah the invasion was great. the Aftermanth we have been held back. Look I know no one wants to lose civilians but if you look through History, that is how wars are won. Not by defeating the opposing military. Look at Japan, we never touched the japanese military did we? we took out a few hundred thousand civilians and they gave up. If we went in to Iraq and started massive bombing raids trying to oust Al-Queda members, it wouldn't take many civilian deaths before tha Iraqis started ousting Al-Queda for us.
See, now this I agree with... If you're going to go into battle, go in to win... don't sit around and wait for the enemy to attack. Go in balls out, watch your back, and fuck 'em up.
wish we could, politics don't allow it
That seems to be the real problem... Imagine how few troops we would have lost if we had gone in and kicked some skulls in.
That seems to be the real problem... Imagine how few troops we would have lost if we had gone in and kicked some skulls in.
This is part of the problems now. If we could do what Saddam did to control his country by ruthlessly squashing any resistance we wouldn't have to worry about IED's or insurgents either.
This is part of the problems now. If we could do what Saddam did to control his country by ruthlessly squashing any resistance we wouldn't have to worry about IED's or insurgents either.
LMAO, my whole point is that day after day you guys come in here and say the military sucks that we can't beet a bunch of rag heads. Well if we were allowed to use our full force there would be no Iran/Iraq left...It's the politics of war that keep us from suceeding, not the military
LMAO, my whole point is that day after day you guys come in here and say the military sucks that we can't beet a bunch of rag heads. Well if we were allowed to use our full force there would be no Iran/Iraq left...It's the politics of war that keep us from suceeding, not the militaryI would think it would be humanitarian concerns that would restrict your 'final solution.'
You overestimate our military 'might'.
You underestimate the will of the people.
I don't know if I would compare us to saddam...
I would think it would be humanitarian concerns that would restrict your 'final solution.'
I wonder if people were worried about humanitarian issues when we dropped bombs on Hirishimo and NagasakiEisenhower, Nimitz (cmdr of the pacific fleet), MacArthur, Adm. Leahy (pres. chief of staff) Gen. Spaatz (cmdr. of the Air Force in the Pacific) Sec. Bard (undersecretary to the Navy) and a lot more all thought that the bombings were not necessary.
Eisenhower, Nimitz (cmdr of the pacific fleet), MacArthur, Adm. Leahy (pres. chief of staff) Gen. Spaatz (cmdr. of the Air Force in the Pacific) Sec. Bard (undersecretary to the Navy) and a lot more all thought that the bombings were not necessary.
There was no swell of popular opposition/support b/c the bombings were top secret.
was there a huge division of the country as there is today after we dropped them?I doubt it. Nobody knew about it b/c it was the most guarded secret on the planet. As information filtered out about the cost/benefits of the bombings, I'm sure opinions developed. In light of what we know now, it is not a stretch to call the bombings the worst man-made disasters of all time.
I doubt it. Nobody knew about it b/c it was the most guarded secret on the planet. As information filtered out about the cost/benefits of the bombings, I'm sure opinions developed. In light of what we know now, it is not a stretch to call the bombings the worst man-made disasters of all time.
The important fact to remember is that the people that knew of the bomb and of the state of the Japanese with respect to surrendering were against the bombing.
That's rather sobering.
so do we ignore the fact that Japan became a world super power following us rebuilding it?I don't know. Does your contention diminish the fact that 140,000 men, women and children were burned alive or poisoned with radiation dying a slow death? And the bombings gave the US the dubious distinction of being the only country to use nuclear weapons on fellow human beings.
I don't know. Does your contention diminish the fact that 140,000 men, women and children were burned alive or poisoned with radiation dying a slow death? And the bombings gave the US the dubious distinction of being the only country to use nuclear weapons on fellow human beings.
There is a terrific debate on whether the bombings were necessary. As I pointed out, the military leaders w/ the best knowledge of the circumstances stood against the bombings.
My point is, in order to win a war it isn't a matter of beating the military. If we took out 140,000 Iranians/Iraqis the will of the pwople would wilt and we would be victorius. In Iraq we have already lost 60,000 in everyday fighting. What if we would have taken out 50,000 in the beginning? The Iraqi people would be more helpful in pointing out insurgents to save their own hide. I'm not saying we target civilians, but if we just start carpet bombing Baghdad to take out insurgents and civilians die sometimes that is a cost of war.I could not imagine carpet bombing as a viable option. At some point one's sense of humanity intervenes--whether that source is religious embodied by the teachings of Christ for e.g. or simply the wisdom of the Golden Rule of treat others as you would like to be treated.
More people were killed in 1 fire bombing on Tokyo before we dropped the first nukeThat's interesting. I wonder if that is in line with the carpet bombing of Dresden.
I could not imagine carpet bombing as a viable option. At some point one's sense of humanity intervenes--whether that source is religious embodied by the teachings of Christ for e.g. or simply the wisdom of the Golden Rule of treat others as you would like to be treated.
No doubt your military tactic is efficient.
I really don't promote carpet bombing Decker. I am tired of people saying the military isn't the power that it portrays itself to be. I just wish people would realize that if we were allowed to use our power they wouldn't be saying that.I'm not accusing you of anything. I wouldn't do that.
I'm not accusing you of anything. I wouldn't do that.
I have no doubt that with our nuclear capabilities we could destroy any enemy on earth several times over.
Life is as simple as one chooses to make. If one has related concerns mitigating the drive to utterly destroy the enemy, such as worries of civilian casualties, then alternatives to that type/style of victory must be sought. If those concerns for loss of innocent lives are negligible, then carpet bombing is not difficult to envision.
I'd like to think that before we annihilate a city or countryside, we consider all the ramifications of our actions.
LOL, you are crazy
Oh I know you haven't said anything. But daily the people here say "if you guys are so powerful why haven't you ended this thing yet?"
If we did it right now?
Probably would work to a certain extent. But they wouldn't give up. They are religious nuts.
In the process we would kill thousands of civilians and be hailed as a evil empire.
We would be alienated by even some of our strongest allies.
We would be condemned by the rest of the world.
It would be political suicide and our reputation as a "christain Nation" would change to "warmongers" and murderers.
It would be about the least thought out move ever at the expense of many dead innocent people who will suffer the effects for many years.
Yeah the invasion was great. the Aftermanth we have been held back. Look I know no one wants to lose civilians but if you look through History, that is how wars are won. Not by defeating the opposing military. Look at Japan, we never touched the japanese military did we? we took out a few hundred thousand civilians and they gave up. If we went in to Iraq and started massive bombing raids trying to oust Al-Queda members, it wouldn't take many civilian deaths before tha Iraqis started ousting Al-Queda for us.
We take 50% of the B-52s from Barksdale, 50% of the B-2s from Whiteman, 50% of the B-1s from Dyess, load them to the gills, fly over to Iran/Iraq/NK (take your pick) and bomb the living shit out of it until they give up. What would all the Libs have to say about that?
Why do you use the subjective tense, when the present or even past tense is more appropriate?
You forget one crucial factor... there was no AlQ in Iraq before the invasion.
AlQ in Iraq was a product of the invasion
These are all people who have never served a day in their lives (not a prereq)..read any books..not newspaper articles..books on the day to day combat that takes place over there. Talked to folks who have been over there....any insurgencey is very difficult to defeat....historically its been that way. We are equipt to break stuff..not selectively kick doors. Besides we don't make policy...the idiots in Washington do.
Better yet, why don't they load them up with you and all of your family and drop you all in the middle of the "sauce"?
Why do you use the subjective tense, when the present or even past tense is more appropriate?
did we carpet bomb a city?
has some of strongest allies, England, Canada, Japan etc.... alienated us?
Been there, what have you done for this country?
we pay our taxes. we follow the law.
you really should stop playing the "i serve my country so i'm better than you" card. Kinda takes away your hero status and replaces it with self-righteous glory hound. Like the firefighter who makes fun of the accountant at a party to try to show him up to get laid. Your position loses all inherent respect when you try to use it as leverage in an argument. you're at your job, you're paid for it. you don't "deserve" add'l props, even tho you get plenty. You've been doing this a lot lately, and it cheapens the honor the military deserves, when you demand/expect it.
wait now 240, I don't do what I do for the glory and surely not the money. I only brought it up because he said they should put me on a plane and drop me over there...insinuating I haven;t been there so I shouldn't talk about bombing. I NEVER use my service as a trump card and am FAR from a hero. But I do mention it when arm chair quaterbacks want to bash the war or bring up their freedom of speach(just an example) but do nothing to defend those rights and take people that do for granted or even worse, bash them.
These are all people who have never served a day in their lives (not a prereq)..read any books..not newspaper articles..books on the day to day combat that takes place over there. Talked to folks who have been over there....any insurgencey is very difficult to defeat....historically its been that way. We are equipt to break stuff..not selectively kick doors. Besides we don't make policy...the idiots in Washington do.
As a citizen, a voter, a taxpayer, and American, I have the same right as 300 million others to be an armchair QB.
I hate to see it when you sometimes throw it in the face of others that they haven't served. I think almost every one of us would serve if a foreign aggressor came to our shores. I'd be in the yard with a rifle like everyone else to kill a chi or Rus aggressor.
But many don't serve because they don't want to lose a limb or crap in a bag for the rest of their life, over an oil aggression war and sunni/shiite referee. You want to, and that's cool. But to many, that's not defense, that's offense.
tell me this....if the US had never participated in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnem etc.... we would be just as free as we are today?
Define 'free'.
Would our constitution be changed in any way? No.
I see your point cardio....so I will concede on that. Enigma is a combat surgeon..I know how I feel about this war..If I did his job i would feel the same way he does..no doubt about it. He sees it much worse then any of us.
240 has gone over the edge..I'm not sure if he realizes the crap he's saying now. AS for his comment on MM or even me throwing down the I served some I'm better card.......I don't know.....Star Ship troopers is required reading on many military reading lists. The one thing i took away from that book is..U can't be a citizen unless u serve. Take it for what its worth.
I see your point cardio....so I will concede on that. Enigma is a combat surgeon..I know how I feel about this war..If I did his job i would feel the same way he does..no doubt about it. He sees it much worse then any of us.
240 has gone over the edge..I'm not sure if he realizes the crap he's saying now. AS for his comment on MM or even me throwing down the I served some I'm better card.......I don't know.....Star Ship troopers is required reading on many military reading lists. The one thing i took away from that book is..U can't be a citizen unless u serve. Take it for what its worth.
I would agree HH, I am not "better" than anyone else , but I do feel we have more leverage to talk about freedoms since we are the ones that keep those freedoms in tact.
I will disagree on some point... Yes, you do fight for our freedoms... but I don't see what's going on right now in the Middle East as a fight for American freedom... so take that for what you will.
I give the utmost respect to those who serve, but those who serve also need to understand that when they come home when it's all said and done, especially in times where many people don't think they should be there in the first place, that they are coming home often because those who did not serve are tired of seeing those who serve risk there lives for a cause that seems "confused".
I have never and will never betray my feeling that the guys on the ground are the most important thing... period. More important than oil, politics, or any groups ideas... The troops are what matters the most.
People who have no respect for people who serve are worthless... No one sacrifices more for this country than a deployed Serviceman or his family.
Just because you serve doesn't not mean you get a free pass though... if you disrespect me, you will get it in kind.
Respect is still a two way street, even if you are a member of the Armed Forces.
There was a more real patriotism during that time and a bigger connection to the military..and folks turned on them pretty harshly. What happens now. There is wayyyyyyyyyyy less patriotism and much more of a divide between those who serve and those who don't.
I disagree.
We want you guys out of harms way. We support you. Not Bush. It is possible to support the troops but think the guy running the war is wrong.
And I thought americans were WAY more crude to soldiers during vietnam - spitting on them, etc. You NEVER see that with this war. We love the troops, they're celebrities. We just see the reasons behind the war, and the poor mgmt, are terrirble.
We take 50% of the B-52s from Barksdale, 50% of the B-2s from Whiteman, 50% of the B-1s from Dyess, load them to the gills, fly over to Iran/Iraq/NK (take your pick) and bomb the living shit out of it until they give up. What would all the Libs have to say about that?
I disagree.
We want you guys out of harms way. We support you. Not Bush. It is possible to support the troops but think the guy running the war is wrong.
And I thought americans were WAY more crude to soldiers during vietnam - spitting on them, etc. You NEVER see that with this war. We love the troops, they're celebrities. We just see the reasons behind the war, and the poor mgmt, are terrirble.
I disagree with u over this and we have spoken about this many time..I see it more as indifference.....then u had a draft....now people have no stek in it. If they don't ever plan on serving they have nothing to worry about. I would like think that if there was a draft that folks would be more inclined to pressure Bush to WIN and pull out instead of pull out. I don't see the spiting or the hate..but if there was a draft u would..people just don't care as much either way.
Good point..i disgrree that that would be the ourcome but very good idea, I would like to know what everbody else thinks...either more support for the troops and a lets win and leave or..draft riots and pull out now.
Good point..i disgrree that that would be the ourcome but very good idea, I would like to know what everbody else thinks...either more support for the troops and a lets win and leave or..draft riots and pull out now.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. The US invaded a sovereign Iraq illegally. The UN authorization that Bush violated was predicated on Iraq's possession of WMDs.
I disagree with u over this and we have spoken about this many time..I see it more as indifference.....then u had a draft....now people have no stek in it. If they don't ever plan on serving they have nothing to worry about. I would like think that if there was a draft that folks would be more inclined to pressure Bush to WIN and pull out instead of pull out. I don't see the spiting or the hate..but if there was a draft u would..people just don't care as much either way.
How could people support the troops better?
I'm just curious.
Because i don;t see a change in the support domestically changing anything going on in Iraq. But i could be blind to something.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. The US invaded a sovereign Iraq illegally. The UN authorization that Bush violated was predicated on Iraq's possession of WMDs.
What in god's green earth gives the US the right to decimate that country--some 66,000 civilians with whom the US has no beef are dead.
Now we are supposed to win? Win what? This is a 5000 year old tribal culture. We are going to change that with daily violence and a straw government?
A military excursion of this type in Iraq doesn't fight terrorism--it fuels it.
Since Bush's illegal war on terror started, worldwide terrorist attacks have grown exponentially some 600%, terrorist caused deaths are up 237%.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001978.html
Fighting terrorism is a police problem not a military one.
we pay our taxes. we follow the law.
you really should stop playing the "i serve my country so i'm better than you" card. Kinda takes away your hero status and replaces it with self-righteous glory hound. Like the firefighter who makes fun of the accountant at a party to try to show him up to get laid. Your position loses all inherent respect when you try to use it as leverage in an argument. you're at your job, you're paid for it. you don't "deserve" add'l props, even tho you get plenty. You've been doing this a lot lately, and it cheapens the honor the military deserves, when you demand/expect it.
This kind of thing seems to be pretty much common knowledge.
Although there are still a great many that think our invasion helped us in the war on terror.
I like Decker's assertion: Fighting terrorism is a police problem not a military one.
It's both. Wiping out the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan was a necessary military operation.
It does affect morale like it or not when you are in Iraq at the chow hall and the news is on with nothing but bashing going on. I know 240 will say we shouldn't need coddling, but when it is day after day it wears on a person. Especially being thousands of miles away, without family. I don't expect people to run around praising Bush and the average Joe doesn't really bother me. It is mostly the politicians that drag on us, with all of these non binding resolutions and WASTING time passing bills that will be vetoed.
We want you guys home. We are tired of seeing you die. And, when you have Bush/Snow using your deaths for political capital, it turns our stomach.
It's both. Wiping out the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan was a necessary military operation.I disagree. It flies in the face of the fact that the mass death and destruction creates more terrorists than it eliminates.
I disagree. It flies in the face of the fact that the mass death and destruction creates more terrorists than it eliminates.
In fact terrorism is on the rise in Afghanistan. http://securityinnovator.com/index.php?articleID=10732§ionID=27
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16666549/
The Taliban is still intact and under Pakistani protection as is Al Qaeda. The Taliban is still attacking the US installed gov. of Afghanistan. http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1172.html
Are you saying we should not have bombed the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan?I think that's fairly obvious from my response.
I think that's fairly obvious from my response.
Look at the pages and pages of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan:
http://www.terrorismknowledgebase.org/MoreCountryIncidents.jsp?countryCd=AF
Do those results look like terrorism has been contained in that country?
Here's a quote from the Afghani summary for 2005: "Proactive arrests of presumed terrorists have continued, probably preventing many bombings.Despite this progress, Afghanistan saw an increasing number of violent incidents in 2005." There is no summary for 2006, just pages and pages of incidents.
The problem with your straw argument of "bombing the terrorist camps" is that collateral damage does not exist in that universe.
I looked at one of the links. Not sure what it has to do with whether or not we should have bombed Al Qaeda and their host the Taliban in 2001?We attacked cities: Kandahar, Jalalabad, the capitol Kabul. I think it is a stretch to say we bombed terrorist camps. That's where the collateral damage comes in.
And what straw man argument did I make? Also don't understand what you mean by "collateral damage does not exist in that universe"?
I'm confident we did the right by going into Afghanistan. In your opinion, what was the alternative?
We attacked cities: Kandahar, Jalalabad, the capitol Kabul. I think it is a stretch to say we bombed terrorist camps. That's where the collateral damage comes in.
This is a very interesting topic. I will not be able to answer more today b/c I gotta go home. It's well past 4:30 here in the great city of Milwaukee and I'm off to home. I don't want an upset wife.
Have a great weekend BeachBum
Unfortunately I think that point is absolutely correct. Our actions are helping to fuel hatred.
How long before Iraq could be a viable country able to sustain it's own democracy without any help from the US? Will it ever happen? I don't think so. This battle to make Iraq a democratic nation is a losing one, without outside support the democracy would never succeed.
Outside of the major cities of Iraq I'm guessing the mind set of the people will never change. I'd also guess that it won't change for many in the major cities as well. Democracy is fighting one hell of a battle.
We take 50% of the B-52s from Barksdale, 50% of the B-2s from Whiteman, 50% of the B-1s from Dyess, load them to the gills, fly over to Iran/Iraq/NK (take your pick) and bomb the living shit out of it until they give up. What would all the Libs have to say about that?You're such a freaking moron ::) Of course in your mind this would make the world much safer ::) What you would have is terrorism on a scale massively greater than we have now. Listen to your bullshit, you sound like a wannabe sith lord. Put down you Darth Maul action figure you goofball.
We attacked cities: Kandahar, Jalalabad, the capitol Kabul. I think it is a stretch to say we bombed terrorist camps. That's where the collateral damage comes in.
This is a very interesting topic. I will not be able to answer more today b/c I gotta go home. It's well past 4:30 here in the great city of Milwaukee and I'm off to home. I don't want an upset wife.
Have a great weekend BeachBum
We take 50% of the B-52s from Barksdale, 50% of the B-2s from Whiteman, 50% of the B-1s from Dyess, load them to the gills, fly over to Iran/Iraq/NK (take your pick) and bomb the living shit out of it until they give up. What would all the Libs have to say about that?
What about the millions of civilians who would be killed?
All those people who are suffering under the terrible dictator Kim Jong-Il, why do you want to kill all of them?
-Hedge
What about the millions of civilians who would be killed?I believe the point he's trying to make is that if you kill lots of civilians they will capitulate to your wishes. He uses Japan as an example.
All those people who are suffering under the terrible dictator Kim Jong-Il, why do you want to kill all of them?
-Hedge
MM69
(http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=19865_NVTechvc005555.jpg)
Jeff, no offense, but could you possibly pick a less graphic pic..... for your avatar.
I thank you in advance.
We want you guys out of harms way. We support you. Not Bush. It is possible to support the troops but think the guy running the war is wrong.
Unfortunately I think that point is absolutely correct. Our actions are helping to fuel hatred.
How long before Iraq could be a viable country able to sustain it's own democracy without any help from the US? Will it ever happen? I don't think so. This battle to make Iraq a democratic nation is a losing one, without outside support the democracy would never succeed.
Outside of the major cities of Iraq I'm guessing the mind set of the people will never change. I'd also guess that it won't change for many in the major cities as well. Democracy is fighting one hell of a battle.
did we carpet bomb a city?
has some of strongest allies, England, Canada, Japan etc.... alienated us?
Where the hell did u get that from......The rags will rush into anyplace that they have a chance to confront the west...ALQ is a product of Bill Clinton and the pussy left not doing their job.
Like I said... AlQ in Iraq is a product of the USA's aggressive war and illegal invasion of Iraq.
AlQ is not a product of Clinton. AlQ is a product of Reagan/Bush1
...and Bush2 is the idiot that pulled troops and resources from Afghanistan before finishing the job. You of all people should know what a disastrous clusterfvck Afghanistan turned out to be.
How does it feel knowing you lost good men over there, only to have lawmakers turn around and call for the Taliban to form part of the Afghan government?
{LOL} Only one point left to draw on huh?
No... England, Canada and Japan haven't alienated you ...at the state level,
...but I gotta tell ya, ...the mood on the street ain't too pretty. :P
How does it feel knowing you lost good men over there, only to have lawmakers turn around and call for the Taliban to form part of the Afghan government?
When is the mood on the street ever good?
It's always like that.
True, ...but I've never really seen it this bad. There is always some amount of US hostility up here, ...actually condescension is a much better word, ...but not usually within the Canadian redneck population. When Cdn rednecks start spitting at the mere mention of the US, ...it's not good. They've usually been the most stalwart US supporters. :-\ Still shaking my head that you guys have let things get this bad.
One's person's peaceful removal from power will change that.
Some of the camps and/or terrorists were in the cities, no? Collateral damage is always a concern. This is the reason why our men and women are dying in Iraq. We could end this thing by wiping out areas, grid by grid, but because of our ROE and concern for collateral damage, we do the house-to-house thing. We're not trained to do this.Thanks for the kind words BeachBum. I really enjoy discussing these things with you.
We can discuss later. Even though we are probably pretty far apart politically, you are a good addition to the board. Have a good weekend. Last thing you need is an upset wife. They are no fun. :) Have a great weekend. It's Aloha Friday. :)
Use of force to apprehend or kill in this situation is not the question. That is a given. The question is "Is a military invasion the best way to battle terrorism?" and the answer is no. Your slam-dunk hypothetical doesn't change that.
Question: You have a terrorist camp in Iraq or some place. There's 200 occupants and they are heavily armed. Do the police handle this or does rapid deployment brigade handle this?
Thanks for the kind words BeachBum. I really enjoy discussing these things with you.
Here is why I think that Military Strikes on cities are a bad way to fight terrorists:
1. The massive destruction creates a hatred in the population that runs counter to "winning the hearts and minds" of the Islamic world. One cannot win the hearts and minds of a people if we destroy them.
2. Military strikes do not solve the terrorism problem. The terrorists regenerate their troops and emerge with a larger chip on their shoulders against the US. Also, by inflicting civilian casualties we actualize the stereotype that they have for us--a murderous imperial war machine.
3. The reason we are on the hunt for terrorists is b/c 19 guys with box cutters hijacked some planes and used them as weapons. They were criminals and we must use like force to apprehend them. Military strikes are overkill.
4. These terrorists are not sponsored by any one country. They are free agents. The countries that have lent aid to Al Qaeda--Saudi Arabia and Pakistan--are not even on the table for military strikes, sanctions...hell even investigations.
5. Let the cops do there jobs. Infiltrate the organization(s). Destroy their financial network. Arrest them and put them away for 20 lifetimes. Let that be the object of any potential terrorist's thoughts.
Use of the military is a ham handed counter-productive approach.
Use of force to apprehend or kill in this situation is not the question. That is a given. The question is "Is a military invasion the best way to battle terrorism?" and the answer is no. Your slam-dunk hypothetical doesn't change that.
I remember that criminal affront called "Waco" where the feds stormed a compound occupied by well armed religious folk. The cops were able to secure that place without bombing the area to hell.
I agree with you for the most part. An invasion isn't the best way.
The assertion was fighting terrorism by both military means and police means. I agree that it doesn't require an invasion IF the country's government doesn't support it and is actively trying to stop it. But what about if the government is flat out supporting it? What if they camps all over their country and were actively conducting terrorism operation from these camps? Wold we need the military to do something about that?
Good points. I think the difference in Afghanistan was you had an entire country being run by a group (the Taliban) that served as host for a terrorist group (OBL and Al Qaeda) that used Afghanistan as a base to train and launch an attack against Americans on American soil. A swift response was necessary.
Mullah Omar (the taleban leader) offered to deliver Bin Laden directly to Washington, DC - dead or alive, as requested - if the Bush administration would give them ANY proof that bin laden was involved in 9/11.
We refused.
Mullah Omar offered to deliver bin laden to the hague for a world trial - no evidence required.
We refused.
From his point of view, OBL was some prick living in his country, but he was living there. To clarify:
If China called up the White House and said "we had some terror attack here. We believe professor beach bum from Oahu was responsible - please turn him over for execution". We would tell china to either provide evidence, or go screw themselves. Right?
What if your Family was killed by a serial murderer and you knew exactly who it was but had no way to prove it and knew there was no way a court would convict him?
Would you follow the law and let the justice system handle it?
Good points. I think the difference in Afghanistan was you had an entire country being run by a group (the Taliban) that served as host for a terrorist group (OBL and Al Qaeda) that used Afghanistan as a base to train and launch an attack against Americans on American soil. A swift response was necessary. We couldn't have taken months or years to do special ops against Al Qaeda after 911. No telling how many other cells they had in the U.S. and/or how many other attacks were planned.I understand your point and I would tend to agree with you on the point that the US was just hit and a certain air of confusion reigned in our country. We weren't sure who hit us and when we found out, we wanted an unequivocal show of force immediately. And the US did strike several weeks after 9/11.
So, while I agree with you that attacks on cities to strike terrorist groups are not the best approach, I see Afghanistan as an exception.
Also, certain segments of Islam hate and probably always will.
I agree with you for the most part. An invasion isn't the best way.I was waiting for this point to come up. Then we do what is an unquestionably a constitutional act: We have Congress declare war on that country.
. . .What if they camps all over their country and were actively conducting terrorism operation from these camps? Wold we need the military to do something about that?
Mullah Omar (the taleban leader) offered to deliver Bin Laden directly to Washington, DC - dead or alive, as requested - if the Bush administration would give them ANY proof that bin laden was involved in 9/11.
We refused.
Mullah Omar offered to deliver bin laden to the hague for a world trial - no evidence required.
We refused.
From his point of view, OBL was some prick living in his country, but he was living there. To clarify:
If China called up the White House and said "we had some terror attack here. We believe professor beach bum from Oahu was responsible - please turn him over for execution". We would tell china to either provide evidence, or go screw themselves. Right?
I understand your point and I would tend to agree with you on the point that the US was just hit and a certain air of confusion reigned in our country. We weren't sure who hit us and when we found out, we wanted an unequivocal show of force immediately. And the US did strike several weeks after 9/11.
Was that the correct thing to do or the smart thing to do? I don't know the intelligence used to make that determination. In short I don't know. The Use of Military Force is a powerful tool and I would hope an informed decision was made as far as long term strategy is concerned.
After the fact it is easy to point out that we should have considered other options. And since terrorism and the Taliban is thriving in Afghanistan, it's easy to say that mistakes were made. I just hoped we'd have learned something before hastily attacking Iraq.
Oh please. It was obvious to Colin Powell et al. that OBL and Al Qaeda was behind the attack. The Taliban knew they were hosting terrorists. They weren't going to give us squat. Our national security was at stake. You don't negotiate with terrorists under those circumstances.
I haven't seen the intelligence either, but I believe representations of those who did. Plus OBL has admitted he was behind the attacks, so it's not as if we need to second guess our intelligence.
You are such an armchair warmonger.
It's like you're spouting back the Cheney lines from 2001/2002 "meet the press".
They did offer to give him up, in a box with evidence, and to the hague without evidence. We declined negotiations.
I guess we TRIED your way, warmonger. OBL is still loose, we've lost men and spent billions, and nothing has changed there. Geez, is it that hard to step back and think "Wow, suppose they had turned him over and we could have avoided this whole losing war".
But, your ego and conditioning will always win out over common sense. Bravo on attacking afghanistan. Nice work on catching OBL.
The one videotape, very much disputed by experts domestically, and worldwide?
You're telling me that is the only evidence we have? Hell, there is a great deal of evidence pointing at saudi favoritism and paki ISI INVOLVEMENT in 9/11. And you have one shoddy video?
Jeez, you'd be a lousy prosecutor.
Everything is a conspiracy to you. ::)
No. The top general of the paki ISI wired $100,000 to Atta, a few days before the attacks. Then, he had breakfast with the soon-to-be-appointed head of the CIA, and a soon-to-be-911 commissioner, ON 9/11.
This doesn't smell fishy to you?
Not only was it never investigated, but on every transcript and recording by the white house where this was mentioned, they had *technical* problems and his name never showed up. However, CSPAN and CNN picked it up just fine.
Take a stand and quit being afraid. Is this fishy, or isn't it?
This conspiracy crap is stupid.
::) I don't debate this stupid stuff. We were discussing whether our strikes in Afghanistan were appropriate and the use of the military to combat terrorism. If you'd like offer something constructive on that issue, I'd be happy to discuss. But I won't be discussing your Twilight Zone conspiracy nonsense.
this isn't twlight zone stuff. it's public record.
I contended that the evidence pointed at pakistan.
seriously, right now, you're scared to even look at it. i feel bad for you, you inferior, spineless little man.
LOL. Ah the schoolyard challenge. How old are you? LOL . . . .
there's no challenge. you're disparaging something you refuse to look at.
in the message board world, that puts you on the irrelevant troll level.
all kidding aside, when you enter a debate, then mock evidence which supports the position of an adversary, you make the whole thing suck. Challenge my evidence! But look at it, it's from Cspan. I know you try to be funny, but really, you're not.
Oh please. It was obvious to Colin Powell et al. that OBL and Al Qaeda was behind the attack. The Taliban knew they were hosting terrorists. They weren't going to give us squat. Our national security was at stake. You don't negotiate with terrorists under those circumstances.
According to the White House now, ...OBL wasn't behind it but Sheik KM was... ???
According to the White House now, ...OBL wasn't behind it but Sheik KM was... ???
I haven't seen the intelligence either, but I believe representations of those who did. Plus OBL has admitted he was behind the attacks, so it's not as if we need to second guess our intelligence.Bin Laden didn't take credit for the attacks until 2004. I have to admit that I haven't looked into the legitimacy of the evidence. Vetting the reasons/intelligence for military use of force seems appropriate now. When this sort of inquiry doesn't happen, then a breeding ground of distrust, dissent, opposition and even conspiracy arises.
Bin Laden didn't take credit for the attacks until 2004. I have to admit that I haven't looked into the legitimacy of the evidence. Vetting the reasons/intelligence for military use of force seems appropriate now. When this sort of inquiry doesn't happen, then a breeding ground of distrust, dissent, opposition and even conspiracy arises.
Look at this news story from 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml
Apparently, since no one new that Bin Laden was behind the attacks, the Taliban simply wanted some sort of confirmation that OBL was the perpetrator of 9/11 before it turned him over to the US.
The president declined that request and the invasion was on.
Here's an interesting link where opinions from all sides of the spectrum are posted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1588769.stm
For myself, as a matter of course, I prefer diplomacy to military action. I don't see the harm or difficulty in complying with the Taliban's request for information before action. For what it's worth, about 5000 civilians died in the invasion. That's a small city. And OBL still got away. The Taliban is still a player and terrorist acts are on the rise in Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, OBL was still wanted by the US for other terrorist incidents. Talk about murky.
I don't have a problem with someone looking at whatever evidence we had before we invaded Afghanistan, so long as it doesn't compromise national security, but I don't think there is much of a debate over who was responsible for 911, nutty conspiracy talk notwithstanding.
But they were not about to hand over Bin Laden. From the first link: Asked if he was ready to hand bin Laden over, he snapped, "No."
Step back and look at this. If we believed that the Taliban was hosting a terrorist who attacked us, and that the Taliban knew OBL was a terrorist, the Taliban didn't need proof. I don't believe for one second that if we would have shown our hand that the Taliban would have turned OBL over . . . and dismantled the terrorist training camps. In all likelihood, they helped him escape.
And the delay in taking responsibility may have been caused by OBL's inability to communicate while running for his life through the mountains.
I prefer diplomacy too, unless we're dealing with terrorists. These are the same people who will decapitate innocent civilians. I watched the decapitation/murder of Nick Berg. I'll never forget it. I watched it so I can keep some perspective on who we're dealing with. Who the enemy is. Those folks are evil.
I'll never forget it. I watched it so I can keep some perspective on who we're dealing with. Who the enemy is. Those folks are evil.
That was a faked video, made by English speaking men who wore clean Nike sneakers, ...inside Abu Ghraib.
Yeah Iraqis are saying the same thing also, when soldiers took turns raping a 13 year old girl and killing her whole family.
The soldiers responsible are being punished, unlike the terrorists who murdered Nick Berg. That's one of the differences between us and them.
Well CIA says nick berg was killed by abu musab zarqawi, and he's dead. One soldier that raped the girl was discharged and has just now been brought up on federal charges, he's out and about enjoying mcdonals and otherd delites.
Are you comparing our military with these terrorists?
No, comparing the hardships of war of innocent victims. You think they are evil, they think we are evil, just pointing out the obvious.
Okay. ::)
Understood. I do, however, see a stark contrast between us and them ("them" being terrorists). We don't decapitate noncombatants. Daniel Pearl. We don't intentionally blow up women and children. We have rules of engagement. And when one of ours commits a crime, we hold them accountable.
Don't roll your eyes at me. That was either NOT a body, ...or it was an already dead body drained of all it's blood.
If you think the juggular vein doesn't squirt buckets of blood... think again.
Furthermore, watch the video again til the very end, ...and you will clearly hear one of the men, speaking IN ENGLISH.
Furthermore, you will notice US military headgear peek in to a corner of the frame.
Whoever did this video, did a rush job, without a careful eye to details.
It has been thoroughly debunked, ...and that's why it's not running every night on FOX News. Even they know better.
Keep telling yourself that.
I will. I'll also keep reading about the low level men and women who get put in jail for violating the ROE and other laws (like the woman who is in jail for taking pictures of naked Iraqis) because we all know the high ranking guys who both dictated and condoned these abuses will never be held accountable.
Call me when Generals' heads start rolling... or when Rumsfeld is tried as a war criminal