Originally posted by sasquatch672ENglish is a difficult language I know. Im saying that the US going into Iraq was justified given the circumstances and history. But it should have been a mission to get Saddam and move out. Their prolonged presence is causing too many deaths on both sides. A UN presence at this point in assisting to reorganise the govt would be preferable. The US is exercising bad judgement to be there so long. The Sunni, in my opinion, should not be engaging in terrorism of their own people either. There are far too many civilian deaths.
Okay, I'm still not understanding you. Are you saying Sunni terrorists are justified in blowing themselves up at police stations? Or are you saying the US is justified?
Originally posted by sasquatch672You are right that pilots were buzzing tanks to get the soldiers to exit the tanks. Thats because the pilots just like the soldiers manning the American tanks and TOW gunners were sickened by the carnage they were causing on the road from Basra. It was like killing fish in a barrel. Sure I can paint a target for a Laser guided bomb to hit it with precision thus minimizing "collateral" damage but the bottom line is no matter what you or I do civilian casualties will occur. I have to disagree with you though on your assesment of the General who was putting his troops lives in jeopardy to save enemy armed soldiers briefing them that they wanted to just destroy equipment was wrong. Any commander who places his troops lives in danger to save an armed enemy who won't surrender should be relieved of his command.
Well, and then when you take into account the technology the West has incorporated into their weaponry, the "collateral" effect of that technology, in addition to making sure you hit the thing your'e trying to blow up, the vast damn majority of times we don't hit things we don't want to blow up. Pretty conscientious of us, if I say so myself. I don't ...[text shortened]... an pilots took risks with their own lives in order to not have to kill enemy troops.
Originally posted by CliffLandinAs I stated in the previous post I believe we haven't been attacked because we are over there in their backyard putting the preassure on them. Money is getting tight for the terrorists due to the world's governments tightning on the banks. They are using resources "men" in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting the US. There are more reasons that I don't have the patience to type up. I'm also a realist as I stated earlier that I believe there will be another attack. Nothing is a sure thing in life.
This is what I posted:
[i]So what do you attribute to the lack of attacks before 9/11? It was eight years after their first attempt and the 9/11 attack. Without the Homeland Security or the PATRIOT Act we went 8 years. So why do you think that they would attack again right after a successful attack? There is nothing to show that we have been doing any ...[text shortened]... se the guilty conscience of an inept president and your children are paying the price for it.
Originally posted by slimjimOkay, so what do you attribute the lack of attacks between the '93 bombing and the 2001 attack on the WTC?
As I stated in the previous post I believe we haven't been attacked because we are over there in their backyard putting the preassure on them. Money is getting tight for the terrorists due to the world's governments tightning on the banks. They are using resources "men" in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting the US. There are more reasons that I don't have the pat ...[text shortened]... ated earlier that I believe there will be another attack. Nothing is a sure thing in life.
Originally posted by CliffLandinProbably good FBI work when they arrested those clowns from the mosque in New Jersey. I imagine with arrest and conviction of that blind Iman and his cronies put a serious dent in their plans to terrorise this country again.
Okay, so what do you attribute the lack of attacks between the '93 bombing and the 2001 attack on the WTC?
Originally posted by slimjimOkay, so without the PATRIOT Act or the war on terror, without America's young dying in foriegn countries, the FBI was able to stop terror acts in the US. Is that what you are saying? So without you or me giving up our civil liberties law enforcement was able to thwart the would-be terrorists.
Probably good FBI work when they arrested those clowns from the mosque in New Jersey. I imagine with arrest and conviction of that blind Iman and his cronies put a serious dent in their plans to terrorise this country again.
The jury is still out on whether this war on terror is working. Six years is not enough time to call it a success. When we start killing our allies we create more enemies. So killing 18 Pakistanis did more harm than good. Those are the command decisions that must be made. Will we do more harm by using a missile that will take out a block to get a couple of terrorists or should we opt for another approach? It is like using a shot gun to kill a roach on the television. The roach will be dead, but so will the television.
Originally posted by CliffLandinOh come on now. You really don't want to compare Rome, Berlin, or even Waco to the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan do you? OK I'll bite. No I don't think we would have used a missile on any one of those places. We probably would have used the excellent law enforcement people of Rome, Berlin, and Waco to arrest the terrorists. It's kind of hard to call law enforcement into an area where there hasn't been any since the dawn of time.
I also asked you if this method, using a missile to kill a couple of terrorists, would be acceptable in Berlin or Rome or Waco? If there were a couple of known terrorists dining in a cafe in Rome, would it be acceptable to use a missile to take them out.
Originally posted by CliffLandinWell what would you have us do? You have all the questions and you have asked me what I would do and I answered to the best of my ability so now its your turn. I personally think that there is no real answer to all the BS that is going on in the world right now.
Okay, so without the PATRIOT Act or the war on terror, without America's young dying in foriegn countries, the FBI was able to stop terror acts in the US. Is that what you are saying? So without you or me giving up our civil liberties law enforcement was able to thwart the would-be terrorists.
The jury is still out on whether this war on terror is wor ...[text shortened]... shot gun to kill a roach on the television. The roach will be dead, but so will the television.
Originally posted by slimjimOkay, so let's say this occured on the border of India, would you have opted for the missile or the Indian troops?
Oh come on now. You really don't want to compare Rome, Berlin, or even Waco to the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan do you? OK I'll bite. No I don't think we would have used a missile on any one of those places. We probably would have used the excellent law enforcement people of Rome, Berlin, and Waco to arrest the terrorists. It's kind of hard to call law enforcement into an area where there hasn't been any since the dawn of time.
Originally posted by slimjimSo what would I do? Well, let's start with what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq which you said as well. The war in Iraq has weakened our stance in the middle-east not strengthened it. As you said, Iran was the more dangerous enemy. Saddam was not allied with the terrorists. In fact, he was looked upon as a infidel.
Well what would you have us do? You have all the questions and you have asked me what I would do and I answered to the best of my ability so now its your turn. I personally think that there is no real answer to all the BS that is going on in the world right now.
I would have gathered the leaders of the world and listened to what they had to say instead of telling them what I was going to do and saying "You're either with me or against me" alienating ourselves from our true allies.
The European nations have been dealing with terrorism in their countries for decades. It might have been a wise idea to ask them for their opinions rather than cowboying up.
Using the terror attack to take us to war has weakened our defenses and spread our all volunteer army too thin. It is questionable now whether we can deal effectively with the Iranian threat and the threat that N. Korea poses.
I would not have okay'd domestic spying as eroding or civil liberties destroys what we are all about.
I wouldn't have created an intelligence tsar, but I would have spent money to increase the communications between the intelligence bureaus.
Just think of what we could have done with the money spent in Iraq!
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenYou really don't bother to read up on my posts do you? If you had, you'd see that I do not say 'comply with terrorists', but I do say 'don't create them in the first place', which is precisely what you are doing when you bomb innocent civilians, or invade countries on false pretences.
ok, so you are saying comply with terrorist and in return the frequency at which they attack will diminish? Brilliant! These terrorist will attack no matter what, they want to kill all 'infidels'. Living in your theoretical world only puts lives in danger.
prior to 9-11 we were not in iraq or afghanistan, blowing up 2 building brought us there. ...[text shortened]... the terrorist network are very upset that 9-11 happened because of the retaliation it caused.
Originally posted by CliffLandin1.
So what would I do? Well, let's start with what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq which you said as well. The war in Iraq has weakened our stance in the middle-east not strengthened it. As you said, Iran was the more dangerous enemy. Saddam was not allied with the terrorists. In fact, he was looked upon as a infidel.
I would have ga ...[text shortened]... lligence bureaus.
Just think of what we could have done with the money spent in Iraq!
We listened to the world leaders but they didn't want to mess up their sweet deals with Saddam and his food for oil programs. Look at how many political hacks in France, Germany, England, Spain etc. who have been busted taking kickbacks from Saddam. Hell we even had an American who was pardoned by Clinton who now faces an indictment.
2.
True allies? The only ally this country has ever had was England and they are right there with us in Iraq. The other so-called allies only used the American taxpayers and military to protect their behinds during the cold war.
3.
Europe has been fighting terrorists for decades true and they still have the problem. Maybe cowboying up is the only viable solution because diplomacy ain't done diddley.
4.
I for one don't believe North Korea poses a threat. I think China will pull their leash in. I think we would go through Iran in about the same time as we went through Iraq. Their Army is worthless.
5.
What civil liberties have been eroded? They monitored a phone call from outside the US from Osamma to an individual here. I think I would damn sure be a little bit suspicious and curious about that conversation.
6.
The intelligence czar is about as worthless as tits on a bull. They are still having their inter-agency I'm not gonna share info to anybody else crap
Originally posted by slimjim1. No, we didn't listen to the world leaders. We told them to get on board or else. That isn't listening, that is telling.
1.
We listened to the world leaders but they didn't want to mess up their sweet deals with Saddam and his food for oil programs. Look at how many political hacks in France, Germany, England, Spain etc. who have been busted taking kickbacks from Saddam. Hell we even had an American who was pardoned by Clinton who now faces an indictment.
2.
True allies? ...[text shortened]... bull. They are still having their inter-agency I'm not gonna share info to anybody else crap
2. Actually, we have been to war with England twice. How many times have we been to war with France? We did pull their asses out of the fire in WWII, but they did it for us in the War for Independence. They also warned us not to get involved in Viet Nam, but did we listen?
3. Has cowboying up worked? I don't think so.
4. You may be right about N. Korea, but what reason would China have to reign them in?
5. Sneak and Peak searches, for one. The Citizens Finacial Privacy Act for another. And the NSA were not just monitoring calls from Osama. They don't even know where he is. They were monitoring anyones phone calls that they wanted to. And more idiotic, they were monitoring for words like bomb and attack, as if a would be terrorist would use such language.
5. Information sharing is definitely the problem.