America under siege?[just perris in a rant]

[ThePatriot]

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

Yes, very true. But there are LOTS of them going to Iraq, either to get their 72 virgin goats or to get training to get their 72 virgin goats. Either way, they're gettin dead. Look at the numbers. We are fighting a war of attrition in Iraq and we are winning. Keep sending them our way, and we'll keep punching their tickets. Ten less jihadists removed via Iraq is better than same ten hiding out in the Afghani cave madness.

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

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

Dude I am with you on that one "I am all for kicking their ass'*s all over the place"

I was being sarcastic :laugh:


/Hands over a cold one

 

[Perris Calderon]

Yes, very true. But there are LOTS of them going to Iraq, [and being made dead].

and new terrorists being made...recruiting is at it's highwater mark and getting higher

more terrorists today because of the war, not less thepatriot

bed/ g'night

 

[ThePatriot]

Guys, you really need to re-read my posts. The Iraq war started over WMD. The reasons didn't change, just the scope. It has evolved into something quite different. It has given us the opprotunity to take advantage of a situation that can benefit us greatly in the long run if we play it right. The resources would have been wasted, squandered in Afghainstan. Hell, wasn't it more than a week before a rescue mission could even reach a downed airliner in the Afghan mountains a few weeks back
? The terrain is just TOO unforgiving.

And incidently, the verdict is still waaaay out on more world turmoil. A few pages back we had a short burst of positives that have/may come out of this.

 

[ThePatriot]

Dude I am with you on that one "I am all for kicking their ass'*s all over the place"

I was being sarcastic :laugh:


/Hands over a cold one

I know, I just wanted the cold one :laugh:
Thanks!

 

[ThePatriot]

and new terrorists being made...recruiting is at it's highwater mark and getting higher

more terrorists today because of the war, not less thepatriot

bed/ g'night

More today, and maybe tomorrow, but as long as we stay focused, they will tire, and someday, tomorrow will yield less terrorists than the day before. But only if we stand fast and hold our position. We have the ability, we have the power, we need to insure we have the will.

Good night all :tired:

 

[Sazar]

Guys, you really need to re-read my posts. The Iraq war started over WMD. The reasons didn't change, just the scope. It has evolved into something quite different. It has given us the opprotunity to take advantage of a situation that can benefit us greatly in the long run if we play it right. The resources would have been wasted, squandered in Afghainstan. Hell, wasn't it more than a week before a rescue mission could even reach a downed airliner in the Afghan mountains a few weeks back
? The terrain is just TOO unforgiving.

And incidently, the verdict is still waaaay out on more world turmoil. A few pages back we had a short burst of positives that have/may come out of this.

If terrorists operated on the premise of pitched battles, yes it would be brilliant.

Terrorists do not operate in such a manner however.

On the flip side, your idea of bringing people into a central playing field is not quite accurate. While the administration has been very vocal about blaming everything on al-qaeda, the number of local insurgents and terrorist groups has blossomed. That is indeed one way to centralise terrorist activity, by providing a location for new groups to spawn but certainly goes against the premise of what you are saying.

Afghanistan should have been resolved before we decided on ANY action. You don't start a war on two fronts w/o paying the consequences and the lack of security in Iraq even today is one of the consequences of our decisions.

 

[Kr0m]

.. in Iraq and we are winning. Keep sending them our way, and we'll keep punching their tickets. Ten less jihadists removed via Iraq is better than same ten hiding out in the Afghani cave madness.

At the cost of how many innocent-shouldn't-be-there-in-the-first-place, invasion-based-on-lies&deceit... lives?

But hey, I suppose, as long as it's Iraqi civilians getting blown up everyday (on their turf and not in the US), western'rs (mostly US) get their huge reconstruction contracts (and whatever else), its' all worth it.
winning? by who's score sheet? GWB's? lol.

 

[Kr0m]

The Iraq war started over WMD. The reasons didn't change, just the scope. It has evolved into something quite different.

Started over WMD? Think again.
Yer darn tootin it 'evolved' into something different.

If the US government wanted to do so much selfless good in the world, try getting yer asses into Africa (again) where it's STILL truely needed. There might be some resources there to exploit if you look hard enough.

 

[Perris Calderon]

g'mornin everybody!

Started over WMD? Think again.
Yer darn tootin it 'evolved' into something different.

If the US government wanted to do so much selfless good in the world, try getting yer asses into Africa (again) where it's STILL truely needed. There might be some resources there to exploit if you look hard enough.

correct krom

the Iraq war in no way started over Iraq's wmd's or a "gathering threat"

the administration was FULL apprised that the case of "wmd's" was misinterpreted and exaggerated by his own advisor's,,,THE VERY PEOPLE THAT PROVIDED THE DATA HE USED told him he missinterperated what he was trying to sell America


long before he started the war he was told this by his very own advisors, scientists and aids...also advised that Saddam was a smaller threat not a greater threat as time moved forward

again, war 101...you don't voluntarily create a new front and allow your forces to be divided, and especially when that second front enemy is a lesser threat .. Iraq was the least threat since Bush's father took care of bussiness during that administration, and ESPECAILLY when you are already engaged on your first front

 

[ThePatriot]

krom, thank you for your anti-US rhetoric. You just sit back with your countrymen (as usual) and the US will police the world (as usual). As far as Africa goes, I think you are insulting the US men in uniform currently there. Look it up. If it's peacekeeping missions you are referring to, well then, what do we need the UN for(see the second sentence again, please)?

perris, sazar, what I said is 100% accurate from a tactical standpoint. Argue about 2 fronts all you want, but the reasoning is sound. Again, re-read it. You're missing the point here. Afghanistan was NOT a place to fight. I have 8 years in combat arms, 6 in the Infantry and 2 in Armor and countless hours of tactical training. No, it is not a perfect scenario, nothing is. Perfect would be no combat at all. But it can be advantageous to our objectives. I'm sorry you all cannot see this for what it can be.

 

[Xie]

krom, thank you for your anti-US rhetoric. You just sit back with your countrymen (as usual) and the US will police the world (as usual).

No need to bash him because he speaks the truth.

 

[Tuffgong4]

Yes, very true. But there are LOTS of them going to Iraq, either to get their 72 virgin goats or to get training to get their 72 virgin goats. Either way, they're gettin dead. Look at the numbers. We are fighting a war of attrition in Iraq and we are winning. Keep sending them our way, and we'll keep punching their tickets. Ten less jihadists removed via Iraq is better than same ten hiding out in the Afghani cave madness.

and to be honest it's a lot better than having this fight right here in the United States. With all that is going on in Iraq it has to be getting harder for the top Terrorists to be able to plan more attacks here in the US. I'm not saying that will never happen again but at least for the past almost 4 years all action has been going on in other places and not in America.

I also don't see how things could have been handled differently. The only difference would be that we stayed in Afghanistan and let probably double our soldiers die in combat in the terrain of Afghanistan. Another thing we did was take out one more Dictator in Iraq with A LOT OF MONEY that would be helping fund the terrorists hiding out in Afghanistan helping double and triple the losses of American Soldiers.

 

[ThePatriot]

No need to bash him because he speaks the truth.

Well that's a 2-way street, no need to bash me because I'm speaking the truth.

 

[ThePatriot]

and to be honest it's a lot better than having this fight right here in the United States. With all that is going on in Iraq it has to be getting harder for the top Terrorists to be able to plan more attacks here in the US. I'm not saying that will never happen again but at least for the past almost 4 years all action has been going on in other places and not in America.

I also don't see how things could have been handled differently. The only difference would be that we stayed in Afghanistan and let probably double our soldiers die in combat in the terrain of Afghanistan. Another thing we did was take out one more Dictator in Iraq with A LOT OF MONEY that would be helping fund the terrorists hiding out in Afghanistan helping double and triple the losses of American Soldiers.

Yet again one of the few who is looking at this situation with blinders off. Thank you Tuffgong4.

 

[falconguard]

I also don't see how things could have been handled differently. The only difference would be that we stayed in Afghanistan and let probably double our soldiers die in combat in the terrain of Afghanistan. Another thing we did was take out one more Dictator in Iraq with A LOT OF MONEY that would be helping fund the terrorists hiding out in Afghanistan helping double and triple the losses of American Soldiers.

Osama Bin Laden detested Saddam Hussein, Fact. He thought Saddam represented everything wrong with a strong arabic leader. The administration and the intellignece community agreed that Iraq was not funding terrorist activities. Maybe, you are thinking of Libya and Muamaar Kaddafi or Syria? How is opening one Guerilla front for two good?
We are still funding troops in Afghanistan, One of my friends a Marine is being deployed there in June. The way our military was designed was to fight a stand up fight across several continents, Rumsfeld in his infinite wisdom, decided that the lighter more responsive miltary option was a lighter force load, he was correct in the operational swiftness but miscalculated badly when those troops are extended for operations.

The only thing that Iraq has accomplished is that we now have soldiers dying on two fronts. Yes it pulled terrorists from other countries, but weren't the terrorists getting trained in Afghanistan? Al-Qaeda? all we have done is give them an operational theater from over there (Afghanistan) to over there (Iraq)
Militarily winning this fight would be to by taking the fight home to the terrorists, Afghanistan.


So where does Iraq fit in this picture?
but he was a bad guy. So is Kim il sung, or any other African warlord who practices genocide, Sorry if you want use that as an argument you are going to have to come up with something stronger than he was a despot, after all we put him there.

 

[Tuffgong4]

they both hate the US, and that matters a lot more than their hatred for each other. We may not be able to see any aid from Iraq in general to Osama and his minions but any help that could get to the terrorists needed to be stopped. There are other regimes that are helping terrorists but going after anyone else after Afghanistan and Iraq would finally be stretching it.

Also I am totally selfish as an American in realizing that more troops would have died and the fight would have been harder with base operations in Afghani territory.

So call me selfish but I want to see as many US troops come back alive and not have to fight in the horrible terrain of Afghanistan. Oh well I'll be selfish and want them to stay in Iraq where they can fight a better battle and have less casualties.

 

[falconguard]

they both hate the US, and that matters a lot more than their hatred for each other. We may not be able to see any aid from Iraq in general to Osama and his minions but any help that could get to the terrorists needed to be stopped. There are other regimes that are helping terrorists but going after anyone else after Afghanistan and Iraq would finally be stretching it..

Oh you mean like Yemen or Saudi Arabia?
bad argument, he was not funding terrorists, sure he had lots of money stashed, but it was being used to line his own pockets.
Your other argument is fallacious, because we have lost more troops in Iraq, than we have in Afghanistan.

 

[ThePatriot]

Oh you mean like Yemen or Saudi Arabia?
bad argument, he was not funding terrorists, sure he had lots of money stashed, but it was being used to line his own pockets.
Your other argument is fallacious, because we have lost more troops in Iraq, than we have in Afghanistan.

I think you are missing the big picture like so many others here. You surely are not naive enough to think Saddam only paid Palenstinian 'martyrs' families for their 'sacrifice', and it ended there?! C'mon, you CANT believe that's all there was to it? And lining his own pockets? Yeah, and just about every swingin richard on the Oil-For-Food Scandal....ooopps, I mean Program (don't think none of that money was going to terrorism).

His argument, and mine, are 100% correct. Yes, we lost more troops in Iraq. Had we tried to keep the major conflict in Afghanistan, we could easily have double the casualty numbers we have now.

 

[falconguard]

double the casualties of Afghanistan? is still less than Iraq.


The big picture?
Libya is a major training center for terrorists, are we there? No
Saudi Arabia has schools for this, are we there? No
Afghanistan had some of the largest training centers, are we there? Somewhat, but not in any capacity to what we were.
Iraq? in force on the ground, and we have found 0 training centers, except for the stuff set up after we have arrived.

If you have intelligence work that our military and government don't please share. As everything I have seen has pointed to the contrary