T1B

Just some musings, but follow me here.

Usually when a country is attacked militarily by another, should they have the ability (as we do), they launch a counter strike on that nation, perhaps to the point of conquering them.

We're fighting an enemy (Al-Qaeda) who has no nation.

Mr. Hussein was a rather annoying thorn in our side for approximately 12 years.

All attacks since on us since we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan have been in one of those nations.

Since conquering Iraq, terrorists from all around the world have come there to fight our troops.

According to our soldiers, for every one they kill, we kill ten.

Ever thought that perhaps the reason why we conquered Iraq is to create a battlefield on which we could wage a conventional war with the enemy while keeping the fight over there and minimizing the risk on our civilians?

Thoughts? Comments? I'd most particularly like to hear from military peeps.

I won't, at this time, discuss that I think our military has already found and killed OBL and will never admit it until the war is finished. But that discussion is for another time and thread.

Just my two cents. Thanks much.

Why are you searching for ways to explain our involvement in Iraq? What compels you to do this, at this late hour?

battery chucka' one wrote:.... since we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan

Link?

poptart wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:.... since we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan

Link?

All apologies. I meant to say invaded and unseated the governments of those two countries. That work better for ya', bro?

PSU, no big shock you really have nothing to say about it. I'll take your response as your assent that my point is legit. Before you discount it so quickly, imagine if Bush and Co. went before congress and outlined what I wrote. Though it's sound, the outcry from anti-Bushies would have been deafening. When are you going to answer me on the Ibsen Hollywood ending?

Peace.

battery chucka' one wrote:Ever thought that perhaps the reason why we conquered Iraq is to create a battlefield on which we could wage a conventional war with the enemy ...

Yeah, that's exactly how Al Queda and other resistance groups operate. They line up in gigantic formations and bayonet charge the U.S. Army. Uh-huh.

Al Queda kills one U.S. soldier...

...you blow up an Iraqi clinic...

...the Iraqis hate you.

Terrorism 101.

1. Your point is laughably inane - so much so that it's difficult to really address it. My question was valid, because clearly you're still looking for ways to validate the approach that has been taken in Iraq - an approach that has few supporters of any political description at this point.

One of the stupidest things you appear to be laboring with is the idea that we're waging a conventional war in Iraq. We are not. We are engaged in a nation-building exercise based on police work. We occasionally mount offensives - not against distinct political entities, but rather against towns that may contain insurgents.

Your idea that we just blow a whistle and our enemies show up to be killed in an orderly fashion...congrats, it's the most feebleminded idea anyone has clacked out here in many moons. You are a heroic monument to shitpile ideas and woefully lame-brained interpretations.

2. Henrik Ibsen's work is not terribly difficult to understand, but you have succeeded in failing to understand it. The ignorance membrane that surrounds your brain is totally and completely impermeable. As a result, if you have something to say on that topic, you'll have to specifically rephrase it, because at this point the only adequate response is "you're a fucking moron".

Young PSU, perhaps this is hard for you to fathom. Please, allow me to spell it out for you.

Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells/organizations exist and desire to attack us until either we or them are destroyed.

They will fight us whether we fight back or not.

We understand that, right now, they can't fight us head to head, mano y mano.

Are you following?

They can attack us with roadside bombs and such.

They can blow up mosques.

They can kill soldiers and civilians.

They will gladly do this over here, but not while we're over there.

Our soldiers being over there make for a problem they need to deal with before they can either 1) attack other secular arab regimes 2) attack Israel 3) attack Europe or 4) attack us again in the U.S.

Make no mistake, should they ever defeat Israel (hahaha....not happening), they will try to roll through Europe (already have the population in place) and try to get over here.

Our being in Iraq makes this impossible.

Are you following yet? Does this make sense yet?
------------------------

Ibsen is overrated. The same people that like him also enjoyed Bram Stoker's Dracula and the acoustic remake of Layla.

My two cents

p.s. The surge is working.

battery chucka' one wrote:p.s. The surge is working.

^^^^^^^^^

See what you did? You blew it. Big time.

You could have stretched this thing out further, but you exposed your own troll job because
of vanity. We've all made that mistake. Now, grab a water bottle and hit the pine, rook.

battery chucka' one wrote:All attacks since on us since we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan have been in one of those nations.

Sin,

London
Madrid
Glasgow


Fucking idiot.


AQ's war is with The West and secularism. Some of the suicide bombers in Iraq are AQ-associated, some aren't. There's as much infighting between the Shiites and the Sunnis there as attacks against U.S. soldiers. It is a quasi-organized group of cells and individual opportunists we (along with some Iraqis) are fighting, with as many different interpretations of "true Islam," as the rainbow, in Iraq alone.

"They," is a big word, in your "two cents," simpleton.

RadioFan wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:All attacks since on us since we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan have been in one of those nations.

Sin,

London
Madrid
Glasgow


Fucking idiot.


AQ's war is with The West and secularism. Some of the suicide bombers in Iraq are AQ-associated, some aren't. There's as much infighting between the Shiites and the Sunnis there as attacks against U.S. soldiers. It is a quasi-organized group of cells and individual opportunists we (along with some Iraqis) are fighting, with as many different interpretations of "true Islam," as the rainbow, in Iraq alone.

"They," is a big word, in your "two cents," simpleton.

How many of those towns are in the US, you fucking idiot?

battery chucka' one wrote:How many of those towns are in the US, you fucking idiot?

What part of The West, do you not understand?

And btw, none of them are "towns," jackass.

Martyred wrote: See what you did? You blew it. Big time.

http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsart ... cleid=9592

Sure did

Does this make sense yet?

Nope, not yet.

RadioFan wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:How many of those towns are in the US, you fucking idiot?

What part of The West, do you not understand?

And btw, none of them are "towns," jackass.

Since when is it the job of the US to police England and Spain? Or are you further trying to push your capitalistic hegemony on the world? They can take care of themselves. Moron.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

Martyred wrote: See what you did? You blew it. Big time.

http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsart ... cleid=9592

Sure did

At least we know that the Palestinians (please, by the way, under what years was Palestine an official 'nation'?) just want to live in peace with the Israelis and have no desire to 'drive them into the sea'. Also, of course, Arafat NEVER spoke peace with the Israelis to their faces while turning around and preaching their destruction to his own people in a different language. The Palestinians are such peaceful people and that article wasn't in ANY way biased overwhelmingly into their favor. Thank you so much for that incredibly credible article.

btw, was that an advertisement for Zyklon B I saw at the bottom of that page? Interesting.

mvscal wrote:...and they are getting slaughtered in heaps there.

Attrition? That's your battle plan? Attrition?

Let me know when you move up to such advanced warfare strategies such as spear carrying phalanxes
and armoured elephants.

mvscal wrote:Go ahead and hook us up with a list of military victories that did not involve an element of attrition.

Just one will do.

Why bother? I can hook you up with a list of military failures that did.

Oh, and you know damn well that your country has no stomach for a Verdun style blood-letting.

Knowing how that simple fact eats you up gives me great satisfaction.

I don't deny that the jihadists are going to Iraq to fight, but to pretend that was our plan all along is silly.

PSUFAN wrote:I don't deny that the jihadists are going to Iraq to fight, but to pretend that was our plan all along is silly.

But, if Bush outlined that to you as his plan from the beginning, what chance is there that anybody over here would be alright with that? Wars of attrition are incredibly brutal. To say that you're taking a country and will use it as a battlefield that 'isn't us' sounds, and probably is, rather barbaric. I don't know the difference between the terrain in Iraq and Afghanistan but would bet that it's easier to wage a war in Iraq (probably more desert and less mountains). In addition, we got rid of Saddam. Bonus points.

WMD which might or might not exist (although probably not the threat to us as we were told) are much more acceptable reasons for going over there.

mvscal wrote:
Just one will do.

Off the top of my head, Brock taking Ft. Detroit.

mvscal wrote:Go ahead and hook us up with a list of military victories that did not involve an element of attrition.

Just one will do.

How about your own Gulf Hoax 1.

The one where you were sorting canteens in Saudi Arabia in an air-conditioned trailer.

battery chucka' one wrote:Since when is it the job of the US to police England and Spain?

Since when is it the job of the US to police Iraq and Afghanistan?

poptart wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Since when is it the job of the US to police England and Spain?

Since when is it the job of the US to police Iraq and Afghanistan?

Since the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I think that the reasons for Iraq might have been what I outlined above.

We fought wars with both countries. I think it would be incredibly irresponsible to leave a vacuum which can be nicely filled with terrorists, wouldn't you?

I don't agree with our foreign policy, chucka'.

We should seal our OWN borders and stay out of fighting 'wars' ... if that's what you even legitimately want to call these things .... unless our country is directly threatened or attacked.

Yes, going after Bin Laden & Co. made sense.
But it would have made MORE sense to not have our troops all over the globe long prior to the attack on 9/11.

The war on terror is an absurdity.

poptart wrote:I don't agree with our foreign policy, chucka'.

We should seal our OWN borders and stay out of fighting 'wars' ... if that's what you even legitimately want to call these things .... unless our country is directly threatened or attacked.

Yes, going after Bin Laden & Co. made sense.
But it would have made MORE sense to not have our troops all over the globe long prior to the attack on 9/11.

The war on terror is an absurdity.

Poptart. I agree about sealing our own borders. I think that our troops should be in our country. Unfortunately, we are spread out all over the earth. If we pulled out, do you think that those countries' governments would be able to survive? How would you have suggested going after Bin Laden and his cronies? They don't have a country. The war on terror is a hard one to fight due to the nature of the enemy. Attrition, as awful as it is, is apparently the only solution. You can't talk to them. You can't deal with them. They only understand pain and terror. Destruction is what they demand. Either our's or theirs. Do you disagree? I hate war, but can you offer another solution to the situation?

How did the governments of the countries survive before we went in?
Hey, any 'solution' to the current situation will be seen as lacking because the situation the U.S. has gotten into around the world is an absolute clusterfuck.

So no, I don't have a utipian solution to offer.

We ARE going to leave Iraq and Afghanistan at some point.
Right now looks good to me.

Our overall foreign policy and philosophy needs an overhaul.
If it was up to me our troops wouldn't be stationed all over the world.
What other country has military positioned all over the globe??

WTF?

Seriously, .... what ... the ... fuck ... is ... that??


We can't manage or afford our foreign policy.

I agree with you on many points, Poptart. I really do. We unseated governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have to stay there for the long haul. Once they can survive without us, I think we should let them. I agree with pulling troops out of the rest of the world. I really do. Isolationism is alright with me. Unfortunately, how many countries come running to us when they're hit with a giant tsunami. It's sad. Perhaps we're a bit gunshy with histories of Nazi Germany and the USSR. Dunno. What is the opportunity cost of our troops coming home from around the world? What if China agrees to take our place in those countries? What then?

mvscal wrote:Go ahead and hook us up with a list of military victories that did not involve an element of attrition.

Just one will do.

Viet Nam, you pathetic Rove Monkey joke-sign.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Viet Nam, you pathetic Rove Monkey joke-sign.

slight bit of attrition there... it lasted a decade. Best pay attention?

It lasted longer than that, and I wouldn't exactly call it a victory.

Mister Bushice wrote:...and I wouldn't exactly call it a victory.

I would.

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:What other country has military positioned all over the globe??

WTF?

Seriously, .... what ... the ... fuck ... is ... that??

It's an American planet. Fucking deal with it.

It's what's also known as looking out for our interests and being able to react and protect those interests quickly.

It's rather comical to hear someone living in S. Korea with a Korean wife bitching about American troops overseas.

A mail-order commie bride would have worked out just fine, Wagon.


Btw, has Bush delivered you the foreign policy that he ran on in 2000?

har har


Hey, you've been conditioned through the course of what you've seen from America in your life, and through the pleasing words of multiple slippery-tongued suits, to believe that our perverted foreign policy is normal and necessary.

That being the case, I really can't blame you for your stupidity.

Our approach is not normal, necessary, or intended by our founders.
Not at all.

Thomas Jefferson summed up a definite noninterventionist foreign policy position in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none."

George Washington also said that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

Is this what is happening today?


Times change .... oh yessss, Mr War Wagon, I hear you.

So what other founding principles ought we discard in order to 'stay with the times' ... ?

Let's hear 'em.

Poptart win this week's "gets it" award.

"Our interests"?

Fucking tards. The reason why the USA gets attacked, and is thought of in a fairly poor light around the world, is because of this very strange, very selfish, and pretty much criminal idea of land and resources in somebody else's country being "our interests."

Muslims don't hate "your way of life," you flaming fucking idiots. They hate that you support a foreign policy that interferes with their everyday lives. Duh. Serious rocket science, that.

If the Chinese put troops in American cities to "protect their retail interests," you can bet your bottom dollar that patriots like myself would do everything within their power to interfere with their occupation. But when someone else does it, it's "terrorism."

The willingness of the Average Joe to be brainwashed, while not suprising, is still disturbing.

The complete inability of Americans to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes is deplorable.

Typical asinine ranting.

Was there ever a problem with Saddam selling us oil? Would Iran not gladly sell us oil?

What is this "threat" to our interests that necessitates any part of this catastrophic disaster in Iraq?

By your childish bent, we should be attacking China, since they represent competition for the oil.

But then...you're a Rove Monkey who just spews gibberish.

RACK Dinsdale!

Dinsdale wrote:The reason why the USA gets attacked, and is thought of in a fairly poor light around the world, is because of this very strange, very selfish, and pretty much criminal idea of land and resources in somebody else's country being "our interests."

In many places around the world where US troops are stationed, the local populations and governments are glad for the U.S. presence. They appreciate not only the economic vitality they bring to their area, but the level of security they provide.

Muslims don't hate "your way of life," you flaming fucking idiots. They hate that you support a foreign policy that interferes with their everyday lives.

Sucks for them that they happen to squat over the largest oil reserves in the world. The flow of oil is of vital interest to America and as such we'll take any steps deemed necessary to ensure it keeps flowing. We'll provide the technology to pump it, and out of the graciousness of our hearts, even agree to pay a fair price for it.

I could give a shit what the Muzzies think of our way of life, or if they hate us.

The complete inability of Americans to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes is deplorable.

Even if they had shoes, why should we? The history of mankind is replete with the strong dominating the weak, and now somehow it's supposed to be different?

Pull your head out of your ass.

WarWagon wrote:... and out of the graciousness of our hearts, ....

I laffed hard.

Our heart is our financial interest ... EOS.


Wagon, think of what Dins said about China dropping troops down, in or around us.

You'd be good with that?

I mean, they have to protect their interests and show kindness of heart too.

poptart wrote: Wagon, think of what Dins said about China dropping troops down, in or around us.

Well, they could try that, I suppose.

I'm sorry 'tart. The absurdity of that suggestion is overwhelming. I'm trying to envision where the Chinese Navy (I can't even type that w/o laughing) would drop these invading troops off. Cali? The U & L?

Wait, the last time gooks attacked The United States they didn't make it past Hawaii, and that encounter didn't end so well for them.