Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Pull Out

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    127

    Pull Out

    Pull Out - This is what we will have to do in order to achieve at least some sort of peace. They don't want us there. At least 50% of U.S. citizens don't want us to be there. We need to leave. That will help peace over there.
    "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? -Romans 9:19-21 (NASB)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Theophilus View Post
    Pull Out - This is what we will have to do in order to achieve at least some sort of peace. They don't want us there. At least 50% of U.S. citizens don't want us to be there. We need to leave. That will help peace over there.
    What country are you speaking about us pulling out of? If you're talking about Afganistan we need to stay involved there so it doesn't turn back into a Taliban / Al Qaeda training base to export terrorists to the US.

    We also need to back Israel and not let the Arabs and others run amock over them.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    What country are you speaking about us pulling out of? If you're talking about Afganistan we need to stay involved there so it doesn't turn back into a Taliban / Al Qaeda training base to export terrorists to the US.

    We also need to back Israel and not let the Arabs and others run amock over them.
    Israel is capable of taking care of themselves. The U.S. should get out of the Middle East and let them take care of their own problems. We shouldn't be helping Israel jut because of some misguided belief that it's the place where Jebus is coming back... We already know that's a fairy tale.

    We should get out of Afghanistan as well, we got what we went over there for When OBAMA gave the order to take him out. We have nothing left there to accomplish.
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    What country are you speaking about us pulling out of? If you're talking about Afganistan we need to stay involved there so it doesn't turn back into a Taliban / Al Qaeda training base to export terrorists to the US.
    Doesn't turn back into? It still is...so is Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, and just about every other nation in Western Asia and Northern Africa. Do you think we should fight them all? Like it or not...we are not going to kill every person in the world who wishes death to America. Clearly, after 10 years it should be evident that our strategy is not working.

    A large majority of the "insurgents" will drop their arms and go about their lives if we pull our troops out. They are only fighting us because we are in their country, carrying on with a war that is killing many people around them...guilty and innocent. I for one welcome the idea of terrorists finding a nation where they can train. Let them establish training camps in Afghanistan. It makes it easier to kill them with drones or cruise missiles when they are all gathered together in one place. Remember, we could have killed Bin Laden and many of his top guys prior to 9/11. Now that we understand the consequences of not pushing the go button when we have the chance, it seems unlikely we would sit back and do nothing.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    We shouldn't be helping Israel jut because of some misguided belief that it's the place where Jebus is coming back... We already know that's a fairy tale.

    We should get out of Afghanistan as well, we got what we went over there for When OBAMA gave the order to take him out. We have nothing left there to accomplish.
    That's stupid. You liberals never met a fight you didn't wussy out of at the first chance. You would have folded up your tents at Valley Forge in a New York minute.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    Israel is capable of taking care of themselves. The U.S. should get out of the Middle East and let them take care of their own problems. We shouldn't be helping Israel jut because of some misguided belief that it's the place where Jebus is coming back... We already know that's a fairy tale.
    We should be helping Israel for what they are not, they are not medieval barbarians, they are not religiously oppressing their populous, they are not allowing terrorist plots to be hatched in their borders.

    No one who is truly religion neutral could fail to support Israel, they are the only ones who have not made it an issue. Why do the surrounding countries want to attack Israel? What have they done to deserve it?

    There are only two possible answers, both bad. Sovereignty and religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Doesn't turn back into? It still is...so is Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, and just about every other nation in Western Asia and Northern Africa. Do you think we should fight them all?
    Yes, and communism as well. If we can't afford it then we can't afford it; but there is certainly no moral problem taking out terrorist groups anywhere they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Like it or not...we are not going to kill every person in the world who wishes death to America. Clearly, after 10 years it should be evident that our strategy is not working.
    Right, because imprisoning them = torture. After 10 years there is nothing so evident as it is working.

    I was laughing for days when the uprisings were attributed to obama.

    It's what hasn't happened despite numerous attempts.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    A large majority of the "insurgents" will drop their arms and go about their lives if we pull our troops out.
    Until someone funds them.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    They are only fighting us because we are in their country, carrying on with a war that is killing many people around them...guilty and innocent.
    A war has never been conducted with such caution for civilian safety. It's the insurgents who make it as bloody as they can by dressing as civilians, hiding amongst civilians, shooting in civilian populated areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    I for one welcome the idea of terrorists finding a nation where they can train. Let them establish training camps in Afghanistan. It makes it easier to kill them with drones or cruise missiles when they are all gathered together in one place. Remember, we could have killed Bin Laden and many of his top guys prior to 9/11. Now that we understand the consequences of not pushing the go button when we have the chance, it seems unlikely we would sit back and do nothing.
    Unfortunately military theory is almost universally against you on that, I would love to build a perfect defense; but it can't be done.

    There are millions of targets to defend but few attackers; with finite assets the focus is clear. The focus must be offense, after all he who defends everything defends nothing, and there has been no instance of a country benefiting from a prolonged war.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    Yes, and communism as well. If we can't afford it then we can't afford it; but there is certainly no moral problem taking out terrorist groups anywhere they are.
    I have no problem taking out terrorists as they appear either. The simple fact is that our present strategy is not sustainable, nor do I believe that it is effective. As I said, it is far easier to kill 5 terrorists gathered together in one place than kill 5 terrorist scattered around in 5 different places.

    And you want to fight communism? Why? How do you wish to fight communism? I'll give you a clue...you can't kill an ideology with bombs and bullets unless you kill everyone who shares those ideals. Someone tried something like that starting in 1939...they failed.

    Right, because imprisoning them = torture. After 10 years there is nothing so evident as it is working.

    I was laughing for days when the uprisings were attributed to obama.

    It's what hasn't happened despite numerous attempts.
    Not even sure what you are trying to say here?

    Until someone funds them.
    The vast majority of the people we are fighting in Afghanistan would go about their normal lives if we left. Many are boys and young men drawn from the populace and neighboring nations who will simply lay down their weapons and go home just as they did after the Soviets pulled out. Very few of them would associate with terrorist groups like AQ. And as evidenced in the pre-9/11 days, the ones who do associate with these groups are not difficult to find. What we should really be doing with our remaining time in Afghanistan is establishing relations with "friendly" locals who are willing to provide assistance to us just as the Northern Alliance did in the late 90's. They provided fantastic intel on AQ, Bin Laden, the training camps, etc. Don't forget that we had him in the crosshairs and could have killed him within a few hours of the President giving the word. When we put boots on the ground, we lost a lot of young men and women with very little to show for it, and it took us 10 years to kill him.

    A war has never been conducted with such caution for civilian safety. It's the insurgents who make it as bloody as they can by dressing as civilians, hiding amongst civilians, shooting in civilian populated areas.
    But you will surely agree that many accidents have happened...right? And yes, some of the insurgents are even targeting their own people, and yes, I would believe that many times the insurgents tell the locals that a US bomb or missile was responsible. One sure way to fix that...pull our troops out, and give them nothing to shoot at. If the insurgents continue to kill their own people, they will have nobody to blame. How long do you think it would take before the insurgeny withered on the vine and died?

    Unfortunately military theory is almost universally against you on that, I would love to build a perfect defense; but it can't be done.

    There are millions of targets to defend but few attackers; with finite assets the focus is clear. The focus must be offense, after all he who defends everything defends nothing, and there has been no instance of a country benefiting from a prolonged war.
    How many contradictions can you fit in one thought?

    We have a prolonged war going on right now, despite being on the offensive for ten years. We can not afford it with our finite resources, and I don't see how we are benefitting from it. So your solution is clear to you...the focus must be offense? A continuation of what we have been doing for ten years that we are not benefitting from? Circular logic.

    More on this later...gotta go to work.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    I have no problem taking out terrorists as they appear either. The simple fact is that our present strategy is not sustainable, nor do I believe that it is effective. As I said, it is far easier to kill 5 terrorists gathered together in one place than kill 5 terrorist scattered around in 5 different places.
    5 scattered terrorist can't attack like 5 gathered terrorist. Relying on your intelligence or their mistakes (as waiting around to discover plots surely is) is exactly the same as adopting a siege mentality and will not 'work', you can defend a few targets all the time, many targets most of the time; but you can't defend everything all the time. You note how bad the insurgency is in these countries, how many innocents have been affected. Imagine if the targets of the insurgents were anyone else but trained well armed soldiers?

    That kind of aggression doesn't go away and it doesn't spring from the void. Sure they couldn't do that to foreign countries without money but with that kind of base support it would be only a matter of time. The sinews of war is not money but good soldiers.

    The general destruction wreaked by insurgents, while tragic does have one distinct advantage. It makes it impossible for the inhabitants of this country to ignore the nature of the insurgents goals and their affects as they would if they were allowed to bring the fight to civilian sectors abroad.

    If we had Christian attack organizations springing forth from Texas we would either need to do something about it or get out of the way of who ever they are attacking and we are asking nothing more of anyone else. Do you think it would be a better solution to let those people organize and recruit until some cruise missile came and blew up their camp?

    Let me tell you, no matter how much beer they guzzle they will figure out that they need to stop building camps.

    What if they had support from bush? What if bush was ready and willing to XXXX up any missiles and stop any attack on their camps?

    Do you know how expensive a cruise missile is?

    Someday there may be a way to secure an area without infantry on the ground, that way has not yet been invented.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    And you want to fight communism? Why? How do you wish to fight communism? I'll give you a clue...you can't kill an ideology with bombs and bullets unless you kill everyone who shares those ideals. Someone tried something like that starting in 1939...they failed.
    By destroying communist governments. You can stop the horde without killing every Hun.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Not even sure what you are trying to say here?
    That "bush's" war has made tremendous progress for democracy and peace in the region.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    The vast majority of the people we are fighting in Afghanistan would go about their normal lives if we left. Many are boys and young men drawn from the populace and neighboring nations who will simply lay down their weapons and go home just as they did after the Soviets pulled out. Very few of them would associate with terrorist groups like AQ.
    That they are willing to murder for Islam means they are the problem regardless of whether they had the resources to do something about it when there were no satans around to shoot at.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    And as evidenced in the pre-9/11 days, the ones who do associate with these groups are not difficult to find.
    Lol, so 9/11 was 'allowed' to happen?


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    What we should really be doing with our remaining time in Afghanistan is establishing relations with "friendly" locals who are willing to provide assistance to us just as the Northern Alliance did in the late 90's. They provided fantastic intel on AQ, Bin Laden, the training camps, etc. Don't forget that we had him in the crosshairs and could have killed him within a few hours of the President giving the word. When we put boots on the ground, we lost a lot of young men and women with very little to show for it, and it took us 10 years to kill him.
    It took 10 years to find him because of the quality of his counter-intelligence and covert operations. This supposedly easy to find man eluded US & Allies for 10 years.

    Are you saying it would have been easier to find him without soldiers on the ground? You think locals would be more willing to talk or that the CIA slacked off because of it? That it took ten years only goes to show that you can't count on detecting terrorist much less terrorist plots.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    But you will surely agree that many accidents have happened...right?
    Of course, any war or battle causes terrible collateral damage.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    And yes, some of the insurgents are even targeting their own people
    Targeting people in general, I doubt they target their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    and yes, I would believe that many times the insurgents tell the locals that a US bomb or missile was responsible.
    As opposed to your cruise missile idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    One sure way to fix that...pull our troops out, and give them nothing to shoot at.
    Except every civilized nation, further I am not comfortable with the attitude of leaving large chunks of humanity to fend of violators of rights by themselves while we spend billions on advanced military technology... seems inefficient to say the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    If the insurgents continue to kill their own people, they will have nobody to blame.
    North Korea tells it's people we are at fault for everything, and if you shoot cruise missiles at what you think are terrorist camps (provided they come out and gather away from civilians just for you) they will still have an excuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    How long do you think it would take before the insurgeny withered on the vine and died?
    The insurgency would not exist, all that energy would be put towards supporting terror cells abroad, weakening significantly by the effort of it no doubt but not in comparison to the destruction they could wreak.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    We have a prolonged war going on right now, despite being on the offensive for ten years.
    10 years is less than 100.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    That's stupid. You liberals never met a fight you didn't wussy out of at the first chance. You would have folded up your tents at Valley Forge in a New York minute.
    Why don't you learn some history before making stupid statements like that...

    WWI- Wilson.. Democrat...
    WWII- Roosevelt.. Democrat
    The Korean War- Truman.. Democrat
    Vietnam- Johnson.. Democrat....

    The only Fight a Repug ever started was against a Terrorist that Was eventually killed by a DEMOCRAT....

    lmao.. you're pathetic....
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    We should be helping Israel for what they are not, they are not medieval barbarians, they are not religiously oppressing their populous, they are not allowing terrorist plots to be hatched in their borders.

    No one who is truly religion neutral could fail to support Israel, they are the only ones who have not made it an issue. Why do the surrounding countries want to attack Israel? What have they done to deserve it?
    Only bad part ( for you anyway) is that it takes TAX DOLLARS!!... to continue to support and defend Israel . Our Defense budget is already over inflated, we shouldn't be supporting ANYONE other than the UNITED STATES, Not even Israel. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.. You want to Eliminate Taxes then Israel is on their own... Or I suppose you could Find a few happy Volunteers to toss in a few bucks to pay for it...
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    The war in Iraq cost countless lives and led to a more militant and dangerous Iran .
    The war in Afghanistan cost countless lives and led to a destablised region with a totally corrupt Afghan government.
    A ' democratic' Afghanistan is a pipedream and will be the same kind of democracy as Iran,at best.
    Huge sums of money have been given to a corrupt Pakistani government while they covertly aided the Taliban.
    The Taliban remain a major force in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
    Suicide bombings are common in both Iraq and Afghanistan and militant islamic terrorists still abound.
    Pakistan is sucking up to China.
    Well done chaps( and that includes the UK)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    5 scattered terrorist can't attack like 5 gathered terrorist. Relying on your intelligence or their mistakes (as waiting around to discover plots surely is) is exactly the same as adopting a siege mentality and will not 'work', you can defend a few targets all the time, many targets most of the time; but you can't defend everything all the time. You note how bad the insurgency is in these countries, how many innocents have been affected. Imagine if the targets of the insurgents were anyone else but trained well armed soldiers?
    No, I said that 5 in a group are easier to kill than 5 individuals. As far as 5 being more dangerous than 1, think about it. All it takes is one terrorist to carry a suitcase bomb of ricin into a subway or a crowded football game. What about a lone terrorist poisoning the water supply? 1 lone terrorist could kill far more people in one shot than died on 9/11. When you give these people a place to gather together, they are far more visible, and you can eliminate them far more efficiently.

    It seems telling that you argue against using intelligence in the war on terror. And you also don't seem to realize that there is a vast difference between the insurgency and global terror networks like AQ.

    Do you know how expensive a cruise missile is?
    About 1.2-1.4 million, depending on the model. Call is 1.5 just for a nice round number. The continuing resolution for FY 2011 provides 108 billion for the war in Afghanistan. That equates to $295,890,410 per day. That equates to 197 cruise missiles per day. Over 365 days, that comes out to about 72,000 cruise missiles. Again I will throw out that fact that had Clinton given the go, we could have taken out Bin Laden and many of his top commanders with 1 cruise missile.

    Someday there may be a way to secure an area without infantry on the ground, that way has not yet been invented.
    First off, define "secure". What exactly are we trying to "secure"? Afghanistan? Pakistan? The Middle East? That would be nothing short of laughable. We can't even secure supply lines into Afghanistan with all of our boots on the ground.

    By destroying communist governments. You can stop the horde without killing every Hun.
    Destroying the governments of these 5 nations? Why? What benefit do you possibly see in that?

    They would be China (with 1 billion people and nuclear weapons), North Korea (probably has nukes, has 1.1 million active duty and 8.2 million reservists as of 2010), Vietnam (a trade partner and nation that we now have normalized relations with that maintains a very capitalistic economy), Laos (why?), and Cuba (again...why?).

    We can't afford to fight the wars we are currently embroiled in...yet you wish we would start more?

    That "bush's" war has made tremendous progress for democracy and peace in the region.
    Indeed, 10 years of war, death, destruction, poverty, and starvation have made great progress towards peace.

    What progress has 10 years of war accomplished? Spell it out for me.

    That they are willing to murder for Islam means they are the problem regardless of whether they had the resources to do something about it when there were no satans around to shoot at.
    Again, you need to learn how to seperate terrorist from insurgent. The majority of the insurgents are fighting to get us out of their country. If you think we have improved their lot in life, you need to turn off Fox News and actually do a little reading.

    Lol, so 9/11 was 'allowed' to happen?
    I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

    It took 10 years to find him because of the quality of his counter-intelligence and covert operations. This supposedly easy to find man eluded US & Allies for 10 years.
    Yet we knew right where he was prior to 9/11, and could have taken him out on several occasions. We had people inside Afghanistan that were feeding us intelligence (oooo...there's that word again). We had a dedicated unit that was responsible for tracking him and investigating his operations. We had drones over Afghanistan, and even practiced using Hellfire missiles launched from Predators in mock ops so realsitic we built a model of Tarnak Farms.

    Are you saying it would have been easier to find him without soldiers on the ground? You think locals would be more willing to talk or that the CIA slacked off because of it? That it took ten years only goes to show that you can't count on detecting terrorist much less terrorist plots.
    See above.

    Except every civilized nation, further I am not comfortable with the attitude of leaving large chunks of humanity to fend of violators of rights by themselves while we spend billions on advanced military technology... seems inefficient to say the least.
    Global terrorist networks are going to continue to plan and execute attacks no matter how long we stay in Afghanistan/Pakistan. The only thing we are doing is placing innocent people in the crosshairs, and stirring anti-western hatred. I don't blame the insurgents. You seem to think that we have improved the lives of Joe-schmoe Afghani...but most reports say differently...including those given from the Afghan people themselves.

    The insurgency would not exist, all that energy would be put towards supporting terror cells abroad, weakening significantly by the effort of it no doubt but not in comparison to the destruction they could wreak.
    You continue to mix terrorist with insurgent. There may be some crossover, but the fact is that these are two distinctly different groups with different goals.

    10 years is less than 100.
    Right...?
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    No, I said that 5 in a group are easier to kill than 5 individuals.
    Which is actually the opposite of traditional military logic which proposes the team is stronger than the individual.

    I know what you're saying, but you are obviously envisioning a clumping of tents with some kind of XXXX-up-the-west convention, conveniently out of the way of any collateral damage with known location and distinction from any other settlement. Not only is that insanely idealized but it totally ignores the fact that not even the most tolerant nation would allow continuous missile strikes just because someone half a world away thinks there are terrorist in a building (but more often than not does not know).

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    As far as 5 being more dangerous than 1, think about it. All it takes is one terrorist to carry a suitcase bomb of ricin into a subway or a crowded football game. What about a lone terrorist poisoning the water supply? 1 lone terrorist could kill far more people in one shot than died on 9/11
    If this one person was james bond or rambo maybe, in real life you need help to achieve that kind of effectiveness. They may only send one guy in the end but he's standing on the shoulders of hundreds, and a lot of money. You can see this with our own military, all those people, all that money; but in the end it's only a tiny fraction of the personnel that pull the trigger.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    When you give these people a place to gather together, they are far more visible, and you can eliminate them far more efficiently.
    Visible to who? Not you; you are listening to wire taps and looking at satellite photos. I think you have an extremely over-confident view of intelligence gathering; watching too many 24's.

    Somebody somewhere knew AQ was a threat, but if the intelligence was good enough to stop 9/11 they would have. Don't be fooled by some documentary with 20/20 vision after the fact.

    If I was a terrorist in a country where the government was OK with what ever I would do I would buy a warehouse or something in a city and meet there, and if I had any doubts; the fact that people keep blowing up my camps everytime I build one would convince me.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    It seems telling that you argue against using intelligence in the war on terror. And you also don't seem to realize that there is a vast difference between the insurgency and global terror networks like AQ.
    Global terror networks like AQ are based on the same force that fuels the insurgency, and denied the opportunity to shoot at soldiers people who want to destroy the west will support the cause in some way.

    I do not 'argue against intelligence' I simply do not mistake it for the great wall of china (which was beaten as well).

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    About 1.2-1.4 million, depending on the model. Call is 1.5 just for a nice round number. The continuing resolution for FY 2011 provides 108 billion for the war in Afghanistan. That equates to $295,890,410 per day. That equates to 197 cruise missiles per day. Over 365 days, that comes out to about 72,000 cruise missiles.
    No cruise missile which is only 1.2 million could be launched from the U.S., so why don't you factor in all the launching platforms, all the research which went into building the missiles, all the salaries of all the people who fire them.

    Further while 197 cruise missiles per day may sound impressive to you, it probably has less terror killing affect than the current operations. I don't even think you could find targets for 197 cruise missiles per day.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Again I will throw out that fact that had Clinton given the go, we could have taken out Bin Laden and many of his top commanders with 1 cruise missile.
    And what was bin laden then? How many other bin ladens will intelligence tag, but because we're not sure he's a bad guy we won't XXXX up? How many people who we think will be the next bin laden will we XXXX up for saying something unwise on the phone or riling against the west at the mosque?

    There is no stun setting on a missile, but ground troops can imprison suspects and then release them after they are convinced they are not terrorists.

    You note that without soldiers there the insurgency would melt away; how many cruise missiles and by what method of distinction will allow you to find them then?

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    First off, define "secure". What exactly are we trying to "secure"? Afghanistan? Pakistan? The Middle East?
    The bush administration was trying to secure the middle east, I want to secure the world.

    Secure means that rational laws are in place and enforced allowing for the protection of rights of all in that locale, as well as thwarting threats to other locations from that place.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    That would be nothing short of laughable. We can't even secure supply lines into Afghanistan with all of our boots on the ground.
    Yet Iraq is now riding a two wheeler and it was certainly one of the strongest powers of the middle east.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Destroying the governments of these 5 nations? Why? What benefit do you possibly see in that?
    If they can be replaced with something better the same benefit I see in destroying the U.S. government. Greater protection of rights.

    They would be China (with 1 billion people and nuclear weapons), North Korea (probably has nukes, has 1.1 million active duty and 8.2 million reservists as of 2010), Vietnam (a trade partner and nation that we now have normalized relations with that maintains a very capitalistic economy), Laos (why?), and Cuba (again...why?).

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    We can't afford to fight the wars we are currently embroiled in...yet you wish we would start more?
    I do not wish for a war that cannot be won, but I do know that conflicts such as the ones between liberty and theocracy or statism cannot be solved with diplomacy anymore than you could respond to domestic crime with a compromise between the law and the criminals demands.

    If you want my grand scheme, it's first set our own house in order and then go after the enemies of freedom starting with the weakest through every possible avenue, including propaganda, aggressive diplomacy, economic warfare, and military attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Indeed, 10 years of war, death, destruction, poverty, and starvation have made great progress towards peace.
    It was worth it if only for the most meager restoration of the rights of the 31 million people of Iraq.

    The poverty and starvation was always there, you just weren't looking; and I've got news for you, a whole lot of places in the world have serious issues, but since a republican president sent soldiers to that particular corner suddenly they become important.

    What of Africa and the constant civil disorder, war, violence, disease and hunger?

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    What progress has 10 years of war accomplished? Spell it out for me.
    Major terrorists organizations scattered and disabled, democracy in Iraq, increased awareness of rights in surrounding countries, cessation of Taliban oppression, osama bin laden dead, Saddam Hussein dead.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Again, you need to learn how to seperate terrorist from insurgent. The majority of the insurgents are fighting to get us out of their country. If you think we have improved their lot in life, you need to turn off Fox News and actually do a little reading.
    We haven't improved the lives of insurgents that's for sure. If someone decides to attack allied forces out of some sense of nationalism they are truly deluded; and if it was the fighting which ruined their life, I don't think that would serve as a motivation to get themselves into the heart of it.

    Infinitely more likely is that through some sick combination of religious fervor, misguided collectivism based on viewing the world as tribes they simply decided that they can join the jihad without having to train forever and go to some foreign country.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.
    You implied it, you said that terrorist were easy to find in the pre-9/11 days. That's because they weren't hiding, but if you're saying pre-9.11 should be taken as an example of what our intelligence can accomplish without military attack on enemy bases of operation I would agree whole wholeheartedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Yet we knew right where he was prior to 9/11, and could have taken him out on several occasions. We had people inside Afghanistan that were feeding us intelligence (oooo...there's that word again). We had a dedicated unit that was responsible for tracking him and investigating his operations. We had drones over Afghanistan, and even practiced using Hellfire missiles launched from Predators in mock ops so realsitic we built a model of Tarnak Farms.
    How well prepared we were, yet no one seemed to know what his organization was planning; and afterward were we not in the position to XXXX him up? What happened? Surely if we were so aware of him we could of taken the shot on 9/12 right?

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Global terrorist networks are going to continue to plan and execute attacks no matter how long we stay in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
    We're staying in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from taking over again, and it's not a boolean value terrorist or no terrorist. They are severely weakened by the effort required to hide their operations in both their homeland and abroad.

    There are no terrorist coming from china, I wonder why.... Oh right the Chinese government would not support or permit them.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    The only thing we are doing is placing innocent people in the crosshairs, and stirring anti-western hatred.
    Wait a second, I know we need troops on the ground; talking to people, taking prisoners; while you want to shoot high explosives from 200 miles off the coast and I'm the one who wants innocent people in the cross-hairs?

    If you can kill only terrorist with a missile you can certainly kill only terrorist with ground troops, but that isn't reality. In reality ground troops sometimes hit civilians with such precise weaponry as single bullets. You would kill a thousand times more civilians if you tried to destroy every terrorist with a cruise missile.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    I don't blame the insurgents.
    That's some serious insanity. You don't pick up an AK and start blowing people away in your sleep. It's a deliberate act of violence.

    The only question that remains then is whether they have a right to kill allied soldiers, and the answer is they don't; they aren't violating their rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    You seem to think that we have improved the lives of Joe-schmoe Afghani...but most reports say differently...including those given from the Afghan people themselves.
    I doubt a firefight with the mafia makes the neighborhood safer while it's going on either; but in the long wrong it's better than having the murders and extortions of the don build up over the decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    You continue to mix terrorist with insurgent. There may be some crossover, but the fact is that these are two distinctly different groups with different goals.
    They are different in that terrorist have far more resources, their goals are the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Right...?
    And a war with Islamic terrorism would not go away in 100 years nor 200 years by simply foiling what plots you can find as they are attempted.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    Which is actually the opposite of traditional military logic which proposes the team is stronger than the individual.
    This has nothing to do with "military logic". Logic tells you that a group of 20 people custered together is easier to kill than killing all 20 of those people in 20 different locations.

    I know what you're saying, but you are obviously envisioning a clumping of tents with some kind of XXXX-up-the-west convention, conveniently out of the way of any collateral damage with known location and distinction from any other settlement. Not only is that insanely idealized but it totally ignores the fact that not even the most tolerant nation would allow continuous missile strikes just because someone half a world away thinks there are terrorist in a building (but more often than not does not know).
    Sure, Tarnak Farms, Al Farouq, Al Ghuraba, Derunta, and the roughly 120 other AQ/Taliban training camps are obviously insanely idealized.

    Isn't it odd that you state that even the most tolerant nation would not allow continuous missile strikes, but you obviously see no problem with invasion, continuous occupation, and ground war? You can't have it both ways.

    If this one person was james bond or rambo maybe, in real life you need help to achieve that kind of effectiveness. They may only send one guy in the end but he's standing on the shoulders of hundreds, and a lot of money. You can see this with our own military, all those people, all that money; but in the end it's only a tiny fraction of the personnel that pull the trigger.
    No. You said 5 scattered terrorists can't attack like 5 gathered terrorists. And I responded that 1 lone terrorist can do as much damage as 20 gathered terrorists (or 19 divided into 4 groups). Sure, more often or not that lone terrorist has training (like in the camps mentioned above) and support from people (like the people who attend and run the camps mentioned above), etc etc. This is an excessive deviation from the topic at hand. The comment that I believe started your tangent was that 5 clustered people are easier to kill that 5 scattered people. That's just a fact...get over it.

    Visible to who? Not you; you are listening to wire taps and looking at satellite photos. I think you have an extremely over-confident view of intelligence gathering; watching too many 24's.

    Somebody somewhere knew AQ was a threat, but if the intelligence was good enough to stop 9/11 they would have. Don't be fooled by some documentary with 20/20 vision after the fact.
    First off, I never watched 24. I don't really watch television other than hockey and racing, and I certainly don't get my facts from fictional entertainment.

    Somebody did know that AQ was a threat, actually a lot of people knew AQ was a threat. That knowledge came in great part from gathered intelligence. Wire taps and satellite photo's are great, but they are only a small part of intel gathering. We had far more than wiretaps and pictures. The 9/11 Commission Report gives great insight into our gathered intelligence and intel ops prior to 9/11..you should read it.

    And why do you find it necessary to argue against something I never said? I never claimed that we had good enough intel to stop 9/11. I'm sure if we had known the specifics, we would have stopped it.

    If I was a terrorist in a country where the government was OK with what ever I would do I would buy a warehouse or something in a city and meet there, and if I had any doubts; the fact that people keep blowing up my camps everytime I build one would convince me.
    And when a cruise missile slides down your chimney and blows up your warehouse, or a spec ops team quietly slips in and plants 40 pounds of plastic explosive after planting 2 hollow points in your chest and 1 in your head, I hope the last thought that goes through your mind is "gee, maybe the city was not such a good idea, given that there are far more places for spies to hide, and too many prying eyes around, and much easier access..."

    Global terror networks like AQ are based on the same force that fuels the insurgency, and denied the opportunity to shoot at soldiers people who want to destroy the west will support the cause in some way.
    Sure...anti-American sentiment. It's where that comes from that differs.
    Here's a good example of what fuels the insurgency

    No cruise missile which is only 1.2 million could be launched from the U.S., so why don't you factor in all the launching platforms, all the research which went into building the missiles, all the salaries of all the people who fire them.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the "research" already be factored into the price? And it seems unlikely that the launching platforms and their crews are going to go away, we are still paying for these ships and subs even if we don't launch any cruise missiles. You asked if I knew how much a cruise missile costs. I answered you.

    Further while 197 cruise missiles per day may sound impressive to you, it probably has less terror killing affect than the current operations. I don't even think you could find targets for 197 cruise missiles per day.
    But we can find enough targets to justify ~100,000 US troops, plus their coalition partners? Perhaps if we leave, the majority of the "targets" will go back to farming and living their isolated lives in isolated villages. Then we can focus our resources on the actual problem that brought us there in the first place.

    And what was bin laden then?
    A terrorist leader who we should have killed prior to 9/11 when we had the chance maybe?

    How many other bin ladens will intelligence tag, but because we're not sure he's a bad guy we won't XXXX up? How many people who we think will be the next bin laden will we XXXX up for saying something unwise on the phone or riling against the west at the mosque?
    I don't know...6? What a dumb question.

    You note that without soldiers there the insurgency would melt away; how many cruise missiles and by what method of distinction will allow you to find them then?
    I would see no reason to find farmers and peasants (the large majority of the insurgency) and drop missiles and bombs on them. Terrorists...different story.

    The bush administration was trying to secure the middle east, I want to secure the world.
    Good luck with that.

    Secure means that rational laws are in place and enforced allowing for the protection of rights of all in that locale, as well as thwarting threats to other locations from that place.
    So you want to go into these nations, enforce your version of rights and laws on the people who live there, and then "thwart" and threats that originate there? Wow. That's just stunning.

    Most of the people in the Pashtun regions (where a large majority of the fighting is occurring) don't even recognize the governments of the country they live in. The mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a largely unruled and autonomous area. These people do not need to be "secured", they need to be left alone. If they choose to live like it's the 5th century, so be it.

    Yet Iraq is now riding a two wheeler and it was certainly one of the strongest powers of the middle east.
    One of the strongest powers of the ME? Really? Not even close. Economically they may have been strong, but certainly not militarily. And just my opinion, but destroying the economy of a nation to the point that it is "riding a two wheeler" might not be the best way to win the hearts and minds of it's people. We shouldn't habe fought there at all, but if we absolutely had to go in, we should have taken out their military and their government, and then left while they were still smiling at us and dancing in the streets. Instead, we stayed...XXXXXX the people off to where they fought us to get out, and then proceded to destroy their country in process. I can't imagine where anti-American sentiments come from...

    If they can be replaced with something better the same benefit I see in destroying the U.S. government. Greater protection of rights.
    Something better for who...them or you? Real change comes about when the people want it, not when you want it. If they want change, they will rise up and take it (examples: the reunification of Germany, the breakup of the USSR). Imperialism does not work (examples: just about every war ever fought).

    I do not wish for a war that cannot be won, but I do know that conflicts such as the ones between liberty and theocracy or statism cannot be solved with diplomacy anymore than you could respond to domestic crime with a compromise between the law and the criminals demands.
    Why not try actual diplomacy and find out, rather than the gunboat diplomacy that we have used since the end of WWII?
    Watch this...I think he has it right

    If you want my grand scheme, it's first set our own house in order and then go after the enemies of freedom starting with the weakest through every possible avenue, including propaganda, aggressive diplomacy, economic warfare, and military attack.
    Enemies of freedom? What kind of neo-con bullsh!t is that? It's this kind of self-perceived imperialistic sense of superiority that causes people to hate us in the first place. Perhaps it's time we try to be that shining city upon the hill that Reagan spoke of, not the gun-toting thugs in the valley. If we set our own house in order, perhaps the victims of your so called "enemies of freedom" might actually desire and effect lasting change to their situation. That is never going to happen at the muzzle of an American gun.

    It was worth it if only for the most meager restoration of the rights of the 31 million people of Iraq.
    Inside Iraq - Human rights concerns in Iraq - YouTube
    These children had a right to live, you can't restore that

    The poverty and starvation was always there, you just weren't looking; and I've got news for you, a whole lot of places in the world have serious issues, but since a republican president sent soldiers to that particular corner suddenly they become important.
    There is a large difference between sending troops to help alleviate poverty and starvation, and sending troops to fight a war that potentiates starvation and poverty. We are not alleviating it, we are contributing to it.

    What of Africa and the constant civil disorder, war, violence, disease and hunger?

    Major terrorists organizations scattered and disabled
    Disabled? Great...we can come home then right? Get real. Terrorists are going to continue to pose a threat for a long time, regardless of if we leave Afghanistan now or in 20 years. In fact, our efforts have brought about greater anti-American sentiment and no doubt swelled the ranks of those willing to join these terror groups.

    democracy in Iraq
    We'll see.

    increased awareness of rights in surrounding countries
    Huh? Examples?

    cessation of Taliban oppression
    The Taliban is still active and thriving, and most of "Pashtunistan" supports them.

    osama bin laden dead, Saddam Hussein dead.
    We could have accomplished this without trillions of dollars spent, thousands of dead soldiers, countless dead civilians, and much of these 2 nations destroyed.

    We haven't improved the lives of insurgents that's for sure. If someone decides to attack allied forces out of some sense of nationalism they are truly deluded; and if it was the fighting which ruined their life, I don't think that would serve as a motivation to get themselves into the heart of it.
    We haven't improved the lives of most of the people in these nations by bringing death and destruction to their doorsteps.

    Infinitely more likely is that through some sick combination of religious fervor, misguided collectivism based on viewing the world as tribes they simply decided that they can join the jihad without having to train forever and go to some foreign country.
    That's a stunning display of ignorance and misguided speculation.

    You implied it, you said that terrorist were easy to find in the pre-9/11 days. That's because they weren't hiding, but if you're saying pre-9.11 should be taken as an example of what our intelligence can accomplish without military attack on enemy bases of operation I would agree whole wholeheartedly.
    I implied that 9/11 was allowed to happen? Think again. I did no such thing, and I challenge you to show that I did.

    And yes, they were easy to find, and that's exactly why...because they weren't really hiding. Sure, OBL kept a low profile, and no terrorist in their right mind runs around introducing themselves as terrorists, but they were somewhat exposed and among the people. The mere fact that we knew where OBL and many top AQ leaders were at various points is evidence that our intelligence efforts were at least somewhat effective. What was not effective was our utilization of the intel we obtained.

    How well prepared we were, yet no one seemed to know what his organization was planning; and afterward were we not in the position to XXXX him up? What happened? Surely if we were so aware of him we could of taken the shot on 9/12 right?
    I never said we were "well prepared". Your putting wods in my mouth again. 10 years after9/11 and were still not "well prepared". Some things you just can't prepare for.

    And we most certainly did not know where OBL was all the time. The Northern Alliance and the CIA had his location pinned down where we could have killed him as I stated "on several occasions". Logistically, tracking a terrorist leader in a rural and mountainous foreign nation half way around the world and knowing his exact location at all times is just not possible.

    Let me ask you...do you know anything about duck hunting?

    We're staying in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from taking over again, and it's not a boolean value terrorist or no terrorist. They are severely weakened by the effort required to hide their operations in both their homeland and abroad.
    For a severely weakened group, they seem to be doing quite well...especially in the Pashtun region where they are well supported. But yet again I tell you that you need to learn the difference between Taliban and AQ, the difference in their motivations, and the difference in their goals. Only then can you make an accurate judgerment of which one is a real threat and how to better deal with that threat. A nationwide war with no clear objective other than "keeping the Taliban at bay" is a poor (and very expensive) way of addressing the very real and potent as ever threat of global terrorism.

    There are no terrorist coming from china, I wonder why.... Oh right the Chinese government would not support or permit them.
    East Turkestan Islamic Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Isn't it amazing what a little research and reading can do for ya?

    Wait a second, I know we need troops on the ground; talking to people, taking prisoners; while you want to shoot high explosives from 200 miles off the coast and I'm the one who wants innocent people in the cross-hairs?
    You know that we need troops on the ground...or you think we need troops on the ground? I agree that war can get messy, and that sometimes innocents get killed. This is the prmary reason to use a weapon like drones that can observe targets, and cruise missiles that are accurate within 10 meters. The fact that they are fired from x amount of miles away means nothing. We did have people on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan prior to our invasion. They were talking to people then. Had operations been approved, they could have been killing terrorists then. The most important difference was that they were not stirring up the civilian population into an insurgency.

    If you can kill only terrorist with a missile you can certainly kill only terrorist with ground troops, but that isn't reality. In reality ground troops sometimes hit civilians with such precise weaponry as single bullets. You would kill a thousand times more civilians if you tried to destroy every terrorist with a cruise missile.
    Nobody (at least not I) suggested that we need to kill every terrorist. We certainly should take the initiative when we find targets of value, like what we should have done in 2000 when OBL was in our sites. Killing every terrorist is a pipe dream, one that we should not be willing to trade American lives for. Fight smarter, not harder.

    That's some serious insanity. You don't pick up an AK and start blowing people away in your sleep. It's a deliberate act of violence.
    Again...lern the difference between people fighting the occupation of their country, and people who participate in global terrorism. The insurgents by and large were not involved with 9/11, and will likely not be involved with the next terrorist act that the world faces.

    The only question that remains then is whether they have a right to kill allied soldiers, and the answer is they don't; they aren't violating their rights.
    They wouldn't be trying to kill allied soldiers if allied soldiers were not there. If these people wanted freedom and democracy, they would have jumped at the opportunity they were given after we pushed AQ out and displaced the Taliban. Yet now, most of the Pashtu say that their situations have gone from bad to worse following our invasion and subsequent occupation. What about their right to live as they want? These people are not the people responsible for 9/11. These people don't view themselves as subjects of the Afghan or Pakistani governments...whomever that may be...even the Taliban.

    They are different in that terrorist have far more resources, their goals are the same.
    Actually, their goals could not be more different.

    And a war with Islamic terrorism would not go away in 100 years nor 200 years by simply foiling what plots you can find as they are attempted.
    Right. Real change must come about by finding what motivates the terrorists and eliminating that motivation. That said, there are always going to be people that want to attack us...it's just the way the world is. The idea should be to not give them any more reasons to do so.
    Last edited by snakespit; 11-08-2011 at 03:55 PM.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    That's stupid. You liberals never met a fight you didn't wussy out of at the first chance. You would have folded up your tents at Valley Forge in a New York minute.
    You are no war hero your self douche bag. Your just a bitter old man with a load in your diaper.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •