America under siege?[just perris in a rant]

[Perris Calderon]

Thats the whole problem in a nutshell " they wont fight the way we want them too"

man, they have tons of nerve, don't they?

 

[Lee]

Insurgents have quantity not quality!

For every troop in iraq and Afghanistan there are at least 100 insurgents, gunn-bee a lang time in dat disurt sun!

 

[Perris Calderon]

For every troop in iraq and Afghanistan there are at least 100 insurgents, gunn-bee a lang time in dat disurt sun!

are you saying that those that are so angry we over threw the government that they would murder out number those that are with us by 100 to one!!!

that number can't be correct...the supposed analysis of how happy the vast majority are that we invaded their country would then be way off the mark

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

I dont think it is any where near 100 to 1 thats just plain bull , there will always be the ones that want to be in power and will bomb , murder, and mame anyone , that has always been the way things are in the middle east and I dont think it will ever change no matter what, but that does not mean we need to leave it alone either, somewhere these is a middle ground, just need to find one.

 

[Xie]

Yeah this isn't an "army" your fighting anymore, it's a bunch of people that want their country back.

 

[Lee]

I think you all missed the word 'Insurgents'.

They are not just Iraqi's or Afghans.

They come from all over the World even my country and yours.

 

[Xie]

I think we should put ourself in the "insurgents" shoes. I'm against most everything our current President is for. I'm also against the majority of the silly laws that take away our constitutional rights lately.

If someone were to invade the US today I would continue to fight the invaders no matter how "free" they tried to make us. :ninja:

 

[Kr0m]

I think you all missed the word 'Insurgents'.

They are not just Iraqi's or Afghans.

They come from all over the World even my country and yours.

Yup! I've got an online gaming buddy that recently finished his tour in Iraq and that was one of the first things I asked him. As far as he could tell, the majority of the crap was coming from 'outsiders'. Which is to be expected I guess, since the US is on their 'turf'.

At the same time the Iraqis feel they are being occupied and want the west out of their country but they also know they need to have a hell of a lot better security & stability in their country (which isn't going to happen any time soon) before they leave... catch 22.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Yup! I've got an online gaming buddy that recently finished his tour in Iraq and that was one of the first things I asked him. As far as he could tell, the majority of the crap was coming from 'outsiders'. Which is to be expected I guess, since the US is on their 'turf'.

At the same time the Iraqis feel they are being occupied and want the west out of their country but they also know they need to have a hell of a lot better security & stability in their country (which isn't going to happen any time soon) before they leave... catch 22.

if there are insurgents and terrorists that have traveled to Iraq to fight against America, I'm betting the majority came from Afghanistan, (oh, surprise surprise)...in case anyone forgot,Afghanistan is the place where we should have been fighting terrorism with ALL the might of the United States of America...and in my opinion, anyone that thinks it was a good idea to divert, dilute and otherwise weaken our fight and those resources needs to take another semester of war 101

this galvanization of terrorists and terrorism to other lands was predicted by Clark long before Bush actually acted on his invented war, and he did this in spite of the advise of his advisor's (except of course rhumsfeld who is on the record of admitting he wanted to attack Iraq for 9/11 even though he knew they were not responsible...genious this guy)

war 101;

divide and conquor...this expression is intended to mean that a good way to conquer your enemies would be to devise a method in subterfuge where you might divide your enemies his force of arms.

Bush, in all his military genious, actually divided the forces of America in the fight against those that attacked us voluntarily!

no need for the enemies of America try to fugure out how to do this, he did it for them

my oh my, more terrorism then before he invented his war...who'd a thought?

 

[ThePatriot]

Actually, a recent study(done this month) indicates that most terrorists in Iraq are Saudi Arabian. In one study, numbers over the last 6 months go like this:
154 Arab jihadists(whos names were posted on various websites)
61 percent of those are Saudi Arabian
10 percent Syrian
8 percent Iraqi
7 percent Kuwaiti
and the remainder from Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Tunisia, the Palestinian territories, Dubai, and Sudan.

Even I am shocked that none were from Afghanistan, though it seems very plausible in the fact that The Taliban were genuinely NOT representative for the majority of the population in Afghanistan, per the lack of 'insurgent attacks'. Seems the Afghani people are not supporters of terrorism, either from internal or external sources. Looks like the Taliban brought most of the trash with them.

Also, from a military point of view, it makes perfect sense NOT to want to fight slimy little sleazeball terrorists in the EXTREMELY rugged terrain of Afghanistan. We would want to draw them to an area we have better command and control over. From the posts above, we see they are fighting a guerilla war. This type of combat is very hard to keep up with and still keep our integrity as warriors and not terrorists. The sparse, desert landscape of Iraq, while not impossible to hide scumbags in, is much more manageble, comparatively. We can do one of two things, either resort to guerilla warfare ourselves, which is very hard to do in this lovely 'pc' world we live in(might do some collateral damage don't ya know), or we can stick it out for the long haul and get the job done right.

Create a big-honkin terrorist magnet in a land far away from your homeland, in resonably managable terrain, while at the same time combat-hardening your troops (who by the way, other than small skirmishes, haven't fought a war since Vietnam) for the future, which is sure to bring more action as we look around the globe, is surely preferable to fighing this mother on American soil, or British, or Austrailian...etc. .

Looks like it's working out ok so far. (not meaning to diminish those who sacrificed it all for their country).

 

[Perris Calderon]

hmmm...interesting stats...*goes to wonder*

however, there was a big honkin magnet...afghanistan

attracting terrorism to a central area might be a good idea if one didn't already exist...and creating more terrorism and galvanizing the recruiting cause is a bad idea.

the magnet we needed already existed in afghanistan...inventing a war with fabricated and exaggerated "facts" multiplies the force against us.

 

[Sazar]

No one bitched about the revolutionary soldiers who fought the brits being chicken sh!ts when they employed guerilla tactics.

You fight the way you have to.

I don't condone their actions but come on, we know why they employ the tactics they do.

 

[Xie]

Also, from a military point of view, it makes perfect sense NOT to want to fight slimy little sleazeball terrorists in the EXTREMELY rugged terrain of Afghanistan. We would want to draw them to an area we have better command and control over. From the posts above, we see they are fighting a guerilla war. This type of combat is very hard to keep up with and still keep our integrity as warriors and not terrorists. The sparse, desert landscape of Iraq, while not impossible to hide scumbags in, is much more manageble, comparatively. We can do one of two things, either resort to guerilla warfare ourselves, which is very hard to do in this lovely 'pc' world we live in(might do some collateral damage don't ya know), or we can stick it out for the long haul and get the job done right.

I'm sure the Iraqi's who lost homes/lives are very happy we decided to use their citys as a "terrorist magnet" instead of the courtyside/mountains of the country harboring those responsible for all of this in the first place.

 

[ThePatriot]

hmmm...interesting stats...*goes to wonder*

however, there was a big honkin magnet...afghanistan

attracting terrorism to a central area might be a good idea if one didn't already exist...and creating more terrorism and galvanizing the recruiting cause is a bad idea.

the magnet we needed already existed in afghanistan...inventing a war with fabricated and exaggerated "facts" multiplies the force against us.

But the magnet was THEIR magnet, not ours, and not in a very attractive location either. Like I said, it's quite a bit more mangaeable in Iraq, and ultimately and most importantly, we are getting them to come to our field of choice...always better from a military standpoint. Creating and accelerating terrorism started in and with Afghanistan and would have gotten to the point it is currently at regardless of where we were planting our boots. A very real possibility of keeping our focus in Afghanistan could be a stagnation of combat, a great number of combatants hiding out undetected in the harsh, rugged terrain of Afghanistan, and a much greater KIA list than we currently have. Again, from a purely tactical standpoint, combating the terrorists in Iraq really has worked to our advantage in general.

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

You know this is going nowhere but what can you do I guess its better to just not worry about anything and not bother and just take care of what happens here. Not like we need any kind of peace in the world or leaders that dont murder people by the ten's of thousands, who cares what happens elsewhere lets all drink beer and play baseball and leave the world to fend for itself.

 

[Perris Calderon]

But the magnet was THEIR magnet, not ours, and not in a very attractive location either. Like I said, it's quite a bit more mangaeable in Iraq, and ultimately and most importantly, we are getting them to come to our field of choice...always better from a military standpoint. Creating and accelerating terrorism started in and with Afghanistan and would have gotten to the point it is currently at regardless of where we were planting our boots. A very real possibility of keeping our focus in Afghanistan could be a stagnation of combat, a great number of combatants hiding out undetected in the harsh, rugged terrain of Afghanistan, and a much greater KIA list than we currently have. Again, from a purely tactical standpoint, combating the terrorists in Iraq really has worked to our advantage in general.

they're all over thepatriot, not just Iraq...spain for instance...Iraq is just where they're having fun right now...and the recruiiting oportunities have been multiplied, more candidates considering their "holy fight" now then before the war in Iraq

 

[ThePatriot]

I'm sure the Iraqi's who lost homes/lives are very happy we decided to use their citys as a "terrorist magnet" instead of the courtyside/mountains of the country harboring those responsible for all of this in the first place.

No, I'm sure they are quite unhappy, and rightly so. But in the long run, the Iraqi people and the world are much better off without Saddam. It is a win/win situation. The Iraqis get freed from oppression, which many of us Vets think is long overdue (as in we should have backed them up in '91 like we promised), the mideast gets a fledgling, and hopefully ultimately successful democracy, we get to fight on our terms, not theirs, we get our troops some long-overdue combat-hardening...the gains far outweigh the losses.

 

[ThePatriot]

You know this is going nowhere but what can you do I guess its better to just not worry about anything and not bother and just take care of what happens here. Not like we need any kind of peace in the world or leaders that dont murder people by the ten's of thousands, who cares what happens elsewhere lets all drink beer and play baseball and leave the world to fend for itself.

Can't do that, that's how you ultimately get planes flying into your skyscrapers. The world will not police itself. But I'll have a cold one anyhow since you're offering

 

[Xie]

No, I'm sure they are quite unhappy, and rightly so. But in the long run, the Iraqi people and the world are much better off without Saddam. It is a win/win situation. The Iraqis get freed from oppression, which many of us Vets think is long overdue (as in we should have backed them up in '91 like we promised), the mideast gets a fledgling, and hopefully ultimately successful democracy, we get to fight on our terms, not theirs, we get our troops some long-overdue combat-hardening...the gains far outweigh the losses.

I just find it interesting how we've gone from killing terrorists (those responsible for 9/11) to a freedom war. I love how ever few months the reason for the whole war changes. Next thing you know the whole war will be for a McDonalds on every corner because Iraqi's want hamburgers and Saddam wouldn't allow them.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Nin the long run, the Iraqi people and the world are much better off without Saddam..

of course better off without saddam if that's the only measure...however the damage done to achieve the goal puts the world in more termoil...and therefore, the process produced a world worse off

in addition, were if those resources were invested how we stated they'd be invested, the yeild would be great

bed...g'night